>>7241>Nope. The company can do what it wants. If it were my choice I'd have leaned into portraying a successful African American businessman rather than cutting the whole character
I agree, as I said in the thread at the time. It's their business, but people are free to critique them for it as well. And yeah, having a successful black businessman should make for a positive roll model. There I agree too.
Doesn't have anything to do with my complaint here, however.
Unless you're trying to say it wasn't your position, in which case I would say I never suggested it was.
What I think your position is, from your own words, that you "think that it's fair to consider Uncle Ben to be coded to invoke the idea of the Happy Slave, even if he doesn't meet the criteria of the archetype perfectly."
This is the source of my disagreement personally with Griffon, and likewise my disagreement with your final post in that thread.
I, too, didn't really care about them removing it, beyond thinking it's dumb to do so.
This isn't a position I disagree with, and you even said it in your post besides. >but I was giving my interpretation of what she was trying, and failing, to adequately communicate,
Yes. That's steelmanning.
Are you familiar with the term?
If not, it comes up in the "strawman" thread, and I'd be happy to discuss the concept there. Otherwise, the Wikipedia article goes into a bit of detail. >Just because she was incorrect on the literal fit didn't necessarily completely invalidate the point she was trying to make on why some people would consider the character to be problematic
As far as I can tell, nobody suggested it did.
There may well be other reasons to find him problematic. But he is not a "happy slave".
I did not see anyone in the thread go further than that, that I recall. >Archetypes can be very broad, using symbols from past iterations. I can absolutely understand why someone would think he's an evolution of the Happy Slave.
I, too, can see why. But I think they would be mistaken.
This is why I am annoyed you locked the thread with your final say.
This is a concept I disagree with you on, and want to explore. >From what I saw, it very much seemed that no one was engaging with her refined argument and instead were focusing in on the one thing that she previously was incorrect on.
Because the refined point was not provided, and the incorrect item was the one we had issue with.
This is how conversation works.
Most the time you talk with someone, you won't disagree with them on the whole, but have parts which you do.
For example, I might agree with someone that corporations are bad, but disagree with them about some specific thing that they think one has done.
This is normal. I'd call it healthy, even. >My guess for why being because she was being hostile.
I agree. However, this is their mistake. It's a common one, and I wouldn't hold it against them if they didn't keep to an escalated position throughout. Though, even there, I certainly have no qualms with forgiving.
I wouldn't have been personally involved much at all with that aspect, anyway, were it not for Moony's reply.
Rewarding bad behavior helps nobody, and just encourages that behavior to persist.
Staff are supposed to look in to things, and so they shouldn't have gone without issue despite calling their opposition "cunt".>Considering the misunderstanding continued to be harped on despite her attempts at clarification are where I interpret it as being deliberate.
I disagree clarification occurred. At the initial statement, it was met with snark. Further on, it was sidestepped, not clarified, also with some anger, by pointing to other characters that weren't what Swan referred to as mistaken in his original post.
It's only at the point where they say "Fuck you you disengenuous hypocritical cunt" that you get anything close to clarification.
And this only pulls the defense of perception by others, which is irrelevant, as perception can be mistaken.
It was at one point common perception that the black man was inferior, for instance. Perception doesn't equate to truth, and so Swans claim that the character wasn't a "happy slave" is still perfectly legitimate, as that is what was claimed.
If someone says "sharks kill people", it isn't unreasonable to argue against this, even if the person who said it claims that's what people think.
They can be mistaken. >That things continued as such, especially trying to rules lawyer after Moony had already stepped in is when I decide that this has become deliberate.
Moony's "stepping in" was to say it's fine to call people cunts, just don't you dare ever suggest an argument is made from emotion.
In any case; critique is not instantly " rules lawyering", nor is it unreasonable to point to inconsistencies wherein one party is evidently allowed to insult and belittle the other harshly, but suggesting an argument is from emotion is wrong.
It is not invalid to point out issues.
The immediate dismissal of anyone pointing out these inconsistencies as "rules lawyering" rather does well to show the regard you have towards them, and their application. >Again. Wrong. These are not my beliefs.
Here is your quote back to you;
"So, Uncle Ben isn't literally a Happy Slave, but I think it's fair to say that he's adjacent, which is the contention that Brainy Griffon has with pointing it out in the way Swan has done here. I think that it's fair to consider Uncle Ben to be coded to invoke the idea of the Happy Slave, even if he doesn't meet the criteria of the archetype perfectly."
Were you lying then?>I'm not the one who warned Swan, I just agreed with Moony.
Didn't mean Swan.>I warned Raven because I think harping on that point rather than engaging with the broader point that Andrea made as a followup is a strawman.
Nobody is obligated to discuss a larger topic they don't care about, instead of a part that they do.
If you tell me "the world needs economic reform, cows are dying, gas is going up, and ships are sinking", it's not a strawman for me to ignore the matter of economic reform, and talk about what I know of shipping that would suggest that part is not true.
That's 100% legitimate, and doesn't fit into the definition of straw man at all.
Again, feel free to discuss it in the thread on that if you'd like. >Because after being given more context instead of something like "Ah, I see, well let me argue that point then," Raven escalated and just focused on the fact that she was mad.
So ban for the insults. That would have been legitimate.
The strawman angle doesn't hold true given the definition of the term
It isn't a strawman simply to disagree with someone on a part of their point.
Nor does anger at staff rewarding someone who insults those they agree with make a strawman. >And I locked the thread, because I'm not interested in coming back and dealing with yet another argument or report from it.
This runs contrary to your prior narrative, but I'll assume this is the true one of the pair:
If so, given you got rid of the person throwing insults for people having the audacity to point out flaws in their argument, why?
Shouldn't the thread be safe, now that the troublemaker was gone?>If it had stayed civil I wouldn't have even bothered.
You banned the party responsible.
This logic does not hold up.
Your prior claim for reasoning was better. >
This post is getting long, so I'm going to split it here. Bear with me, as I read these things as I go;