Vespair

100%. We need more personal liability for the evils of big business, not less

Because we don't live in Candyland, we live in reality. Conflating the two currently viable parties is centrist, in impact if not in intent. The reality is that harm reduction is the adult way to process complex choices in the world. All of the things she claims to care about will be objectively worse under Republican control, full stop. And shitty as it is, the Presidential race is currently a binary, again full stop. Claiming anything else is ignorance.

If she, or anyone else, actually cares about breaking the binary, you don't do that flirting with a ridiculously unrealistic longshot (this word does not even begin to accurately describe the magnitude here) in the presidential, you do it by focusing efforts on legitimizing third parties where they are potentially viable - local and smaller scale races. You put in the fucking work and put your boots on the ground - you canvas your local community in support of local third party candidates, you inform your neighbors of the issues and importance of third party options locally, or you fucking run third party in viable elections yourself if no third party option exists. Talking about breaking the binary by conflating both sides in the presidential election is ignorance, reductive, and entirely non-productive.

Best case scenario Roan is wildly naive to reality, but even then her words only muddy the waters and encourage preventing very real harm reduction, full fucking stop.

I didn't assume so, but I do appreciate you saying so regardless. Cheers ✌️

Yeah what I've realized over time is that while no ethical consumption (or work) exists under capitalism, specifically unethical consumption and work definitely does.

Nobody is truly 100% free of the cycle of abuse, but certain people are specifically perpetrators of it. I couldn't take being one.

Also what policies? Like what's the point of feigning a moral stand if you don't define it? If she has legitimate grievances with the Democrats or leftist politics (yes pedants, I know they're different and I'm saying "or" to include both, not to conflate them), then she should voice them. Otherwise she's saying nothing but playing into the bs "both sides" false narrative that enormously benefits the right.

I think she is absolute right and within her rights to be critical and unenthusiastic about the Democratic options, but without actually offering critique then what is her weak centrist take accomplishing?

Hey man, I'm allowed to make a Beatles reference if I coo coo ca-choose to.

Also All-man Brothers? That doesn't sound very inclusive; get back to me when you allow women brothers too.

Edit: what an enormously strange and entirely innocuous comment to downvote. I wonder whose feathers I've ruffled and how.

This was me. I went into banking because I wanted to make money and naively thought it was a harmless service industry. Cue years later and I just can't handle going to work and feeling like a bad person everyday who is pushing evil in the world, so I call it quits.

Haven't made anywhere near as much money in the decade plus since then, but I also don't wake up feeling like I'm harming my community every day, so I haven't regretted my decision for even a minute.

That's fair and I see your point, even basically agree with it. That said, I still wonder sort of what standards we're holding for "good" characters and how realistic that is. And I want to make a brief caveat that I don't know you and can't speak to your personal opinions so I will be making some generalizations about the topic in general; I apologize if it feels like I am unfairly lumping you in with anyone and promise that is not my intention. It is clear to me you aren't a right wing chud screaming about DEI but rather you're a very decent person looking for fleshed-out representation that isn't shallow or driven by stereotypes.

Okay, caveats out of the way now, here's the thing: I have a gay friend who is very proud of their community and themselves for being who they are despite any social pressures. This friend frequently goes out wearing full-blown rainbow attire, speaks with the affectation of their community, and they will absolutely inform you of their orientation upon their first meeting. Of course my friend has vastly more depth than just their community affiliation, but that affiliation is definitely going to be the largest and most prominent quality you associate with them, especially if you never move beyond acquaintanceship to friendship.

If my friend was in a video game, they would absolutely be described as flat or tokenism. But they are a real person. Even if you're thinking to yourself right now "well frankly it sounds like your friend is lacking in depth in real life," (I'd disagree, but go with the argument none the less, please), the fact is they still exist. There are people who define themselves by their identifiers first. So I don't think the mere inclusion of these "flat" representations are inherently problematic.

I don't think a flat character of an under-represented demographic is harmful in the way that a bad or stereotypical representation is. I think there is still benefit in the normalization of lesser-represented groups in media, even if those representations aren't the deepest or most compelling characters. A gay shopkeeper who is flamboyant and one-note still helps normalize the idea of gay people in normal aspects of life.

But of course we can't settle for these characters as the whole piece of representation. We have to still demand deep and complex under-represented characters, especially in lead or primary roles. I just personally don't think the flatter characters are inherently problematic or detrimental to those goal. If anything, I think they're almost kind of tangential or non-sequitur to the topic. The point isn't to complain about flat under-represented characters and discourage their inclusion, the point is to demand good and complex under-represented characters regardless of the inclusion of these flat other representations.

I'm very sorry for the novel I wrote, my brain is crazy today and I couldn't make it more concise in this moment.

Also I have no yet watched Kaos so I can't comment on the representation in that show, but it does sound compelling from what you describe.

Also also, in case it's not clear, I don't think we're arguing; I think we probably agree with each other about 90% of the way here.

I see your point and don't disagree exactly.... but....
I will say it is odd that I hear this kind of criticism of flat gay/female/minority/etc characters but for some reason never hear complaints about the equally-flatly written comic relief characters, or best friend characters, or sage characters, etc. Video games and other stories frequently contain flat characters that are used more as props for the protagonist or other characters to react and respond to, yet complaints about these characters seem to only pop up when said characters happen to represent an under-represented demographic.

It took my awhile to get it until somebody put it this way. The objects aren't exactly "moving" apart from each other, rather space in between them is expanding. So instead of thinking of it like a bunch of objects in a line being pulled away from each other, instead imagine it like a bunch of vector based objects random placed on an infinite canvas - now rather than moving the objects at all, try to imagine instead reducing the scale of all of the objects equally. Now of course this isn't perfect, as really what is happening is kind of the opposite, as the objects remain the same but the space between increases, but the relationship is the same here. So nothing is exactly "moving" in relative space, but everything is still expanding. Thus this expansion can happen infinitely without anything breaking the speed of light.

Name one war which was ever fought on a single battlefield.

Yes, we should be pushing for both regulatory changes and changes on platforms like Steam, but we should also being doing our part.

If there is anything I've learned over time it is that nobody is coming to save you. Ever. If you are holding out for someone to swoop in and make things better, you will be waiting forever. Either we do it ourselves, or it doesn't get done.