[Discussion] Can't we just talk about {media} without bringing {issue} into it?

GWJ is a very diverse community with a very diverse set of viewpoints on any subject you care to mention. Some people just want to talk about games or movies or TV, or whatever and leave all that other stuff out of it. This topic is to discuss why or why not, or when, or if that is a good idea.

I just sent this private message to DocJoe, who expressed some frustration in the Amazon Prime Video topic about a turn the conversation took. Without getting into that specific discussion (which I hope has stopped derailing that thread), I wanted to discuss the larger issue of "Why can't we just talk about {thing} without bringing {issue} into it?"

I'm no authority figure, I've just been around a long time. That said, please read carefully:

There is no litmus test.

Nobody in this community cares how you live your life or think your thoughts unless you start being abusive towards people in this community.

If you don't care what someone involved in a piece of media did in their personal life, that's fine. Nobody is judging you. In fact I'd wager most people on the site feel that way.

BUT (you knew there was going to be a big fat but, didn't you)

When you don't want people bringing up social issues that concern them, and you wish they wouldn't do that because you just want to talk about games and media, that is a problem. No space exists in which discussion about games and media does not include peoples' personal beliefs, be they political, moral, social, whatever. Each individual's mindset is a facet of how they experience any media.

Trying to put up barriers against some expressions of some people is not cool.* Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Often, and especially here on GWJ, the wide variety of opinions exposes people to ideas they may never have thought of. More importantly, putting up barriers to certain kinds of thoughts is a form of oppression. However small, it is an insult to the person being silenced. There are an awful lot of people on GWJ who are marginalized by society at large. We don't want to add to that.

So. There is no litmus test. Nobody is judging you. If someone brings up an objection to some media that doesn't bother you, that's fine. Every individual has their own tolerance and acceptance for various things, and that's fine, too.

* Of course this excludes the obvious categories of expression like racism, sexism, personal attacks, and so on. Putting up barriers against those sorts of expression is very cool.

Ken, that post was written in a moment of moral weakness. I accept my deserved public shaming. It won’t happen again.

Haha, don't sweat it. You are not the only person who has expressed that general sentiment, and not even the only person who felt that way about that specific topic.

For example, GWJ can sometimes be less than welcoming to conservative voices. Quite a few have given up on us after feeling piled on or judged harshly. I think we often need to remind ourselves that people generally stick around here because it is a welcoming, helpful group. I think the default interpretation of any message here should be the charitable interpretation. When posts are being snarky or judgmental, it's usually pretty clear.

Timely article on Vox:

What do we do when the art we love was created by a monster?

Goes pretty in-depth into the history of art criticism, but it's a good read.

I *do* wonder if some of it is "if we can't talk about {media} without bringing {issue} into it, then okay, but can we do so without involving {P&C All-Star}?"

BadKen wrote:

For example, GWJ can sometimes be less than welcoming to conservative voices. Quite a few have given up on us after feeling piled on or judged harshly.

The thing is...

Of course this excludes the obvious categories of expression like racism, sexism, personal attacks, and so on. Putting up barriers against those sorts of expression is very cool.

Conservative voices don't have much to say that *won't* be considered racist or sexist. If you think the difference of opinion between you and someone else is that they ignore part of your humanity, how can you be welcoming to a dehumanizing opinion?

Such instances become complicated by being on the internet.

Lack of facial expression. Lack of intonation. Lack of timely follow up for clarification. This can lead to honest misunderstanding.

And, unfortunately, channelling of the inner keyboard warrior. Fishing for brownie points and positive affirmation, often at the expense of others by way of confrontation to feel empowered. (Perhaps to vent the frustrations of perceived confinement and/or powerlessness elsewhere.) There is no correct response to such, other than not to participate, which can feel unjust. Falsely attributing such behaviour can also occur, because it's the internet.

Take into consideration sub-forums and unique threads within those sub-forums. Some things you don't interject at the dinner table, at church, during a feel good get together, during an emotionally charged instance, and so on, and so forth. To do so can be viewed as either dunderheaded, or malicious. Everything has a time and a place.

Some spaces are all encompassing with respectful discourse at all times. The community at Gamers With Jobs, at this time, cannot claim to be. You'll find shutdowns and exclusions in this thread, and that thread, whilst free speech is trumpeted in others. As determined by whom feels offended or ruffled.

The best we can do is try to remain positive, try to elaborate where necessary, and try to not hold grudges, and to repair any potentially burnt bridges. I know I'd like to.

"Can't we just talk about {media} without bringing {issue} into it?"

Yes, you can. But not everyone can. That's inevitably going to come into conflict.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I *do* wonder if some of it is "if we can't talk about {media} without bringing {issue} into it, then okay, but can we do so without involving {P&C All-Star}?"

BadKen wrote:

For example, GWJ can sometimes be less than welcoming to conservative voices. Quite a few have given up on us after feeling piled on or judged harshly.

The thing is...

Of course this excludes the obvious categories of expression like racism, sexism, personal attacks, and so on. Putting up barriers against those sorts of expression is very cool.

Conservative voices don't have much to say that *won't* be considered racist or sexist. If you think the difference of opinion between you and someone else is that they ignore part of your humanity, how can you be welcoming to a dehumanizing opinion?

Herein lies the problem. Our political climate on both sides has gotten so adept at twisting the words of their opposition that every statement either side makes, even if originally not outright racist or sexist, will ultimately be warped into polarizing ammunition for the war effort. The end justifies the means is the prevailing thought of the day, and the ever worsening fracture of the American community as we demonize those we disagree with is widening by the day.

Nomad wrote:

Herein lies the problem. Our political climate on both sides has gotten so adept at twisting the words of their opposition that every statement either side makes, even if originally not outright racist or sexist, will ultimately be warped into polarizing ammunition for the war effort. The end justifies the means is the prevailing thought of the day, and the ever worsening fracture of the American community as we demonize those we disagree with is widening by the day.

Honestly, that one bolded word is a lot of the "problem."

Used to be that you could get away with racism and sexism as long as it wasn't outright. But that ship has sailed.

The "problem" now is that nuance matters.

Nomad wrote:

Herein lies the problem. Our political climate on both sides has gotten so adept at twisting the words of their opposition that every statement either side makes, even if originally not outright racist or sexist, will ultimately be warped into polarizing ammunition for the war effort. The end justifies the means is the prevailing thought of the day, and the ever worsening fracture of the American community as we demonize those we disagree with is widening by the day.

You're right, that is the problem, and I'd say the response (edit) of some of the more zealous members of the progressive left would be that the American community is *already* fractured. That this isn't creating any new fractures, it's just pulling the cloth back to reveal them, which you have to do to Make Things Better. They're not fracturing the community, they're stating what they think will make it possible for them to be a first-class citizen in that community in the first place. That anyone who has a problem with their 'means' is an irredeemable deplorable anyway, and you're wasting your time trying to change your message to be less polarizing--that's just tone policing. If someone is going to come around to your point of view, they're going come around anyway.

Maybe this is playing Social Justice Warrior's Barracks Advocate here, but this is my most sympathetic take on it: you know that saying "No Justice, No Peace"? Well, "No Equality, No Justice." You can't have the conversation about what is just and unjust before you have equity of power. The 'end' of equal power justifies a lot of 'means' to get there. Once equity of power is reached, only then can people talk to each other like they're members of a community. Without equity of power, there's no community to fracture in the first place.

edit: oh, and I wound up tracking down the original thread, and wow, it's *way* different from what this thread is about.

My answer to the OP is that you can leave politics out if you are only having a very surface level discussion. Art isnt made in a void.

NathanialG wrote:

My answer to the OP is that you can leave politics out if you are only having a very surface level discussion. Art isnt made in a void.

And the stock answer to that is that leaving politics out is itself a political decision.

RnRClown wrote:

Some spaces are all encompassing with respectful discourse at all times.

Where's this?

Jonman wrote:

Timely article on Vox:

What do we do when the art we love was created by a monster?

Goes pretty in-depth into the history of art criticism, but it's a good read.

That was really good and reminds me that I need to spend a lot more time reading up on history as it helps one gain much more perspective on current events. I realize I just made a History 101 statement, but there's a heavy gravity to it because I had either had no idea or completely forgot that art criticism went through such calamitous change in the 20th century.

Jonman wrote:
NathanialG wrote:

My answer to the OP is that you can leave politics out if you are only having a very surface level discussion. Art isnt made in a void.

And the stock answer to that is that leaving politics out is itself a political decision.

Jonman succinctly stated my premise.

For anyone who skimmed the original post, my answer to the question in the title is: I don't believe it's possible to discuss media in any meaningful way without the points of view of the participants entering the discussion. Excluding ideology or identity turns the discussion into not much more than small talk. That's fine as far as it goes (and to be honest, I think that's exactly what DocJoe was looking for that night), but the discussion that inspired me to start this topic had already gone beyond that.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I wound up tracking down the original thread, and wow, it's *way* different from what this thread is about.

How so? That discussion kicked off by me bluntly stating that I wouldn't be watching a TV show because of the behavior of one of the show's actors. That led to the basis for my opinion being challenged, an assertion that a TV show is created by more than one person, a statement that if we are going to avoid media because of one bad person involved in the production there won't be any media left to watch, and more. I was challenged for pooping on a lovefest and it went so far as claiming I was accusing anyone who liked the show of being insensitive, when neither was ever remotely my intention.

The discussion had headed for "don't harsh my groove with your sexism talk" some time before DocJoe directly said something similar to that.

The reason I thought it deserved its own topic is that the idea of inclusiveness cuts both ways. On GWJ, it sometimes happens that a person is shut down because they don't share the majority viewpoint. Maybe that's just human nature, but I like to think we're better than that.

BadKen wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I wound up tracking down the original thread, and wow, it's *way* different from what this thread is about.

How so? That discussion kicked off by me bluntly stating that I wouldn't be watching a TV show because of the behavior of one of the show's actors. That led to the basis for my opinion being challenged, an assertion that a TV show is created by more than one person, a statement that if we are going to avoid media because of one bad person involved in the production there won't be any media left to watch, and more. I was challenged for pooping on a lovefest and it went so far as claiming I was accusing anyone who liked the show of being insensitive, when neither was ever remotely my intention.

The discussion had headed for "don't harsh my groove with your sexism talk" some time before DocJoe directly said something similar to that.

The justification I usually see (and what we are talking about here, as far as I can tell) for why it is both necessary and good to bring these issues up is that by excluding these issues, we exclude whole groups of people from fully expressing themselves and participating in the conversation. Guys aren't one of those groups. It still probably makes the world a better place, but that's a different justification.

On GWJ, it sometimes happens that a person is shut down because they don't share the majority viewpoint. Maybe that's just human nature, but I like to think we're better than that.

Eh...I'll just say my experience has been different. ; D

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
BadKen wrote:

On GWJ, it sometimes happens that a person is shut down because they don't share the majority viewpoint. Maybe that's just human nature, but I like to think we're better than that.

Eh...I'll just say my experience has been different. ; D

What, you've never been shut down because you don't share the majority viewpoint?

Or you don't think we can be better than that? I didn't say we are better than that. There's ample evidence to the contrary. We can aspire to be better.

I think this generally comes down to reading the room. There's nothing wrong with discussing a political or social issue that's connected to a piece of media, but that doesn't mean it's always appropriate. If you're out for a drink with some friends who are reminiscing about the Guardian of the Galaxy movies, well, maybe that's not the time or place to start a debate over whether James Gunn should have been fired. The people you're with just want to relax and have a good time. It's important to respect that and realize that people aren't always in the mood for a serious conversation. And some people are never in the mood for a serious conversation.

And this of course applies online. Is the topic light and breezy? Well, maybe save the serious discussion for another time.

And some people never get to have the light & breezy version of the conversation because they're directly affected by the topic. It is harder to enjoy a thing when you're* constantly reminded of the problems with said thing, but the people complaining of very real issues are not the people who need to learn to read the room. If you're just making small talk about thing, and someone brings up a very serious issue they have with it (or someone involved in it), they're telling you that they can't have a relaxing conversation about it, and to change the subject if you don't want to the conversation to get serious. They don't have to subvert their feelings just so you can keep your chill mood.

*All "you"s are generic you's, not directed to anyone specifically.

BadKen wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
BadKen wrote:

On GWJ, it sometimes happens that a person is shut down because they don't share the majority viewpoint. Maybe that's just human nature, but I like to think we're better than that.

Eh...I'll just say my experience has been different. ; D

What, you've never been shut down because you don't share the majority viewpoint?

Never--I have *never* had such an experience! /sarcasm

Sorry: sure I have, I was just making a reference to that often being my experience, and I was too coy about it, I guess.

Or you don't think we can be better than that? I didn't say we are better than that. There's ample evidence to the contrary. We can aspire to be better.

We're...very human in our nature. It is what it is.

That's a bit of a different issue though. You're talking about a hypothetical person who is personally affected by a piece of media while I'm talking about a hypothetical person with an academic interest in the topic. In your scenario, sure, the person in question should speak up to let the group know this this topic makes them uncomfortable and the group should respect that. A simple "Hey, guys, this topic makes me uncomfortable (reasons may or may not be provided). Let's talk about something else. Susan, how did your trip go last weekend?" is all you need in this case.

In some cases you might want to delve into a serious discussion about why this affects you, but again, that's about reading the room.

Djinn wrote:

That's a bit of a different issue though. You're talking about a hypothetical person who is personally affected by a piece of media while I'm talking about a hypothetical person with an academic interest in the topic. In your scenario, sure, the person in question should speak up to let the group know this this topic makes them uncomfortable and the group should respect that. A simple "Hey, guys, this topic makes me uncomfortable (reasons may or may not be provided). Let's talk about something else. Susan, how did your trip go last weekend?" is all you need in this case.

In some cases you might want to delve into a serious discussion about why this affects you, but again, that's about reading the room.

How personally affected does one need to be for their discomfort to matter? To go back to the original instance that spawned this thread, is someone's discomfort with watching a show because of the sh*tty behavior of a cast member invalid because they never personally experienced said behavior?
Everyone will draw that line differently, and that's fine, but what you don't get to do is get upset that the person whose objection you dismissed/overridden thinks you're a jerk for doing so, or paint them as the jerk for making a formerly "light" conversation serious.

Quote is not edit, but I was just going to add this as at the bottom anyway:
There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to keep the conversation light either, but any frustration should be directed towards the people causing the problem, not the person who has a problem with it. They're not the root cause of the serious conversation, the actor/writier/director/whoever is, so get frustrated with them for being a jerk, not the person who reminds you that they're a jerk.

I for one am very glad that the majority of my conversations in person play out nothing like they do in forums. Imagine if you had to debate someone to defend everything you say in nearly every conversation you had? It's exhausting. Sometimes it's nice to disagree with someone and move on and not belabor the point for hours.

As for this specific type of instance I'm definitely someone that gets a little frustrated with the nitty gritty of a creators personal lives when I just want to veg out and enjoy some entertainment some days. Especially when it's apparent how widespread these issues are to the point where you could see it addressed in every topic. Then there are the days where something crosses your own personal boundaries, hits close to home, or you're just in that frame of mind and that's all you want to talk about.

The reality is I don't need to be part of every conversation though. These forums don't revolve around what I want to see in any given moment. Someone addressing something in a topic doesn't preclude me from talking about something else. I'm not forced to weigh in on every subject I see on a daily basis either.

I think when you get to the point where you realize every negative comment on something you like isn't a personal attack on you it's a lot easier to let people speak their mind without getting defensive. I still struggle with that at times.

Stengah wrote:

How personally affected does one need to be for their discomfort to matter? To go back to the original instance that spawned this thread, is someone's discomfort with watching a show because of the sh*tty behavior of a cast member invalid because they never personally experienced said behavior?

You keep trying to twist my words to make seem as if I'm trying to dismiss how people feel. I've said nothing of the sort.

If you don't want to watch Hacksaw Ridge because Mel Gibson is the director, hey, that's your choice. It's totally cool. However, you're not the center of the universe and you don't get to turn every conversation about the movie into your personal feelings about Mel Gibson. And note that I'm not saying you need to lie about how you feel or even join in on the conservation, but you don't get to kill the conversation because you have an axe to grind.

Generic you. I don't think you're trying to dismiss people, but what you want may have that effect even if you don't intend it.

But to use your specific example, if you do want to watch Hacksaw Ridge, that's your choice too. Also totally cool. However, you're not the center of the universe either and you don't get to forbid any talk about Mel Gibson as a person. You don't get to control how other people participate in a conversation. That, I think, is the biggest sticking point. People with the privilege to be able to ignore an issue getting upset when people remind them of it. As I said in my second post, don't get mad at them, get mad at Gibson for being such an ass that his involvement in anything taints it for so many people.

GWJ is a very diverse community with a very diverse set of viewpoints on any subject you care to mention. Some people just want to talk about games or movies or TV, or whatever and leave all that other stuff out of it. This topic is to discuss why or why not, or when, or if that is a good idea.

I think it's okay for people to ask for less politics in threads because of the way the forums are setup. At some point it does get wearisome when the same talking points are repeated in different threads.

However, the divide between the politics portion and the rest of the forums has eroded, consciously I might add. P&C is gone, D&D is here. The veil has been made thin.

And all of this is fine. It makes GWJ less welcoming than it once was, but also a little less naive. I think society has begun to move past the era where internet forums were a refuge from the rest of life. Some people may still want that, I know I do, but such existence is a bit of a privilege that I no longer think we've earned.

This is a left-leaning site at this time, to say otherwise would be to be deaf, dumb, blind. And people aren't perfect, so there's definitely a fair amount of hypocrisy and some shouting down when people "just don't get it". It happens.

Which is why I find the following in the OP to ring fairly hollow:

Nobody in this community cares how you live your life or think your thoughts unless you start being abusive towards people in this community.
Nobody is judging you.

That's not an attack on you, Ken, but to point out that while you say this and almost certainly believe it to be true, I don't think reality matches it. I think there's plenty of judgment going on, a lot of the time. If someone takes a more moderate stance or (gawd forbid) a conservative stance then you'll absolutely be judged and probably knocked down a peg in people's eyes.

garion333 wrote:

And all of this is fine. It makes GWJ less welcoming than it once was,

For some of you.

For others of us, it is welcoming rather than excluding.
If that means some of you feel "less" welcome rather than clearly unwelcome (as it has been for many of us and is in other locations), tough.

I appreciate there being a gaming site where I can read, occasionally post (very seldom...I've been here since 2003), and feel welcomed.

I'm very glad for the changes over the years. I like there being fewer masturbation jokes. "I'll be in my bunk!"

I'm feeling safer and am more willing to post than when I joined.

As to the original posts that started this thread, I appreciate a comment that may let me know, "hey, this may be problematic because...." I'd love after that one post for the subject to be dropped though. Then I can choose to investigate further if I want or ignore the problematic parts if I want.

MathGoddess wrote:
garion333 wrote:

And all of this is fine. It makes GWJ less welcoming than it once was,

For some of you.

For others of us, it is welcoming rather than excluding.
If that means some of you feel "less" welcome rather than clearly unwelcome (as it has been for many of us and is in other locations), tough.

I appreciate there being a gaming site where I can read, occasionally post (very seldom...I've been here since 2003), and feel welcomed.

I'm very glad for the changes over the years. I like there being fewer masturbation jokes. "I'll be in my bunk!"

I'm feeling safer and am more willing to post than when I joined.

As to the original posts that started this thread, I appreciate a comment that may let me know, "hey, this may be problematic because...." I'd love after that one post for the subject to be dropped though. Then I can choose to investigate further if I want or ignore the problematic parts if I want.

Such a good post, I had to quote it. I agree with all of this. I don't miss GWJ's frat house days. At all.

And I do appreciate when someone points out an issue with something. It's not "sh*tting on the fun train" as I think it got called. I'd rather know than be ignorant, and most of the time it seems to turn into a discussion not because someone wants to dominate the conversation with (for example) their views of Mel Gibson but because a bunch of other people in the thread want to complain about their fun being ruined.

MathGoddess wrote:
garion333 wrote:

And all of this is fine. It makes GWJ less welcoming than it once was,

For some of you.

For others of us, it is welcoming rather than excluding.
If that means some of you feel "less" welcome rather than clearly unwelcome (as it has been for many of us and is in other locations), tough.

I appreciate there being a gaming site where I can read, occasionally post (very seldom...I've been here since 2003), and feel welcomed.

I'm very glad for the changes over the years. I like there being fewer masturbation jokes. "I'll be in my bunk!"

I'm feeling safer and am more willing to post than when I joined.

As to the original posts that started this thread, I appreciate a comment that may let me know, "hey, this may be problematic because...." I'd love after that one post for the subject to be dropped though. Then I can choose to investigate further if I want or ignore the problematic parts if I want.

Oh, absolutely. It's also, hopefully, a part of society maturing also and moving away from Fight Club being taken literally or Porky's being a guidebook. Hopefully...

JeremyK wrote:

The reality is I don't need to be part of every conversation though. These forums don't revolve around what I want to see in any given moment. Someone addressing something in a topic doesn't preclude me from talking about something else. I'm not forced to weigh in on every subject I see on a daily basis either.

Well said.

As an atheist/agnostic I do not need to weigh in on every conversation, or any conversation, religious or faith based, or otherwise, to share that factoid, nor my views on why I find it better than the counterbalance.

JeremyK wrote:

I think when you get to the point where you realize every negative comment on something you like isn't a personal attack on you it's a lot easier to let people speak their mind without getting defensive. I still struggle with that at times.

I've been known to stumble in this area also. A lot.

Djinn wrote:

If you don't want to watch Hacksaw Ridge because Mel Gibson is the director, hey, that's your choice. It's totally cool. However, you're not the center of the universe and you don't get to turn every conversation about the movie into your personal feelings about Mel Gibson. And note that I'm not saying you need to lie about how you feel or even join in on the conservation, but you don't get to kill the conversation because you have an axe to grind.

Agree.

Stengah wrote:

But to use your specific example, if you do want to watch Hacksaw Ridge, that's your choice too. Also totally cool. However, you're not the center of the universe either and you don't get to forbid any talk about Mel Gibson as a person. You don't get to control how other people participate in a conversation. That, I think, is the biggest sticking point. People with the privilege to be able to ignore an issue getting upset when people remind them of it. As I said in my second post, don't get mad at them, get mad at Gibson for being such an ass that his involvement in anything taints it for so many people.

Disagree.

If folks attempt to have a conversation they want to have, how they want to have it, why place yourself amongst that to inform them that you do not like it, and here is why. Maybe even be so bold to move for the discussion to change direction, or to end entirely. No one forces you to participate.

In this Hacksaw Ridge - Mel Gibson example. Is it a discussion about Mel Gibson? Or a discussion about Hacksaw Ridge? They're connected, but they are not the same. Cross over can and will occur, of course, but within etiquette.

At the same time, I'd like for all views (horrible extremes exempt) to be welcome at all times. It's much more interesting and inclusive. The problems I have are with the how, circumstances taken into consideration.

There's also simple shooting the breeze which can get lost in translation, so to speak, on the internet. If I were to say I cannot stand Alec Baldwin, as throwaway participation, which happens in meatspace, it may snowball into a furore online.