Especially if you dedicate your time to the actual study of Marx and Lenin and make leftism more than just a contrarian personality trait. Now go outside!
Yeah, being "well-adjusted" in a sick society is not the flex they think it is.
Forgot where i read that, but i know it was on here so
I also once read, “what does it mean to be a productive member of society, when the society is evil?”
Was it:
"It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society."?
Okay, I'll stop being the hot personification of a country effective immediately
Did you make this whole post just to complain about the thing we all complained about already?
You can find more scantily clad ladies by just browsing Kmart or any other online store lmao
Art, especially cartooning, is founded on abstraction. The majority of details are discarded, only a small few remain. What details are or are not included is one of the most fundamental elements of interpreting a cartoon as a piece of art. Russia, as always, is the easiest example here. Look at what details on the clothing are maintained: The crease in the cleavage, the creases along the pelvis leading into the legs. Of all the details on the surface of the clothing, most others are discarded and these make up around three quarters of the total detail that remains.
Significantly, most of the characterization comes from a confluence of many little details, but to list these is to invite some disingenuous radlib to pick one out and say "Oh, so she's sexualized because she is turning her hips? Puritan!" as though that is what I'm saying. Instead I will ask: Why do all of them have large chests for their weight? Why do all of them [except SA, who is ambiguous due to her arm] have narrow waists? It's because these are fucking waifus, meant to be viewed as objects, not as people. It's wild how radlibs struggle to do anything but media criticism and yet suck so fucking much at media criticism.
Why do all of them have large chests for their weight?
Are y'all seeing a different picture than me? It's incredibly bizzare to me that anyone could look at this and come away with that. Especially, like, India's over there with a full length skirt, average proportions, and a conservative neckline. Can't for the life of me understand what the deal is.
I'm sorry but y'all are being extremely weird about this.
It's interesting that radlibs can sound just like the fuckers who defend skullgirls. I never said shit about how any of them are actually dressed, only about how their clothing is drawn, but just like you so readily misunderstand this as though I was reacting to a picture of actual women rather than drawings, when I discuss how the clothes are drawn, you talk about this. If these were real women doing some "Women of BRICS" thing for some bizarre reason, I would have nothing that I wanted to say about it because there would be no point. Hell, if it turned out that these are semi-accurate drawings of actual people who have some reason to be picked as models beyond nationality and marketability [e.g. that they were "Miss Brazil," etc.], I wouldn't want to say anything. This is not the case, it's just horny posting, and it's telling that half the replies I got the first time were obtuse ones like this and the other half were "actually the artist is a lesbian [and maybe trans? idr] so actually you are attacking the sexual expression of a minority who already frequently has their sexuality attacked". The premises are different but the conclusion is the same, and these two camps don't dispute each other. Really makes you think
It's PG-13 polandball hooters. I don't give a shit if you like your slop like that, but a trough is a trough.
Christ. I don't know what I can say to make you realize how much of creep you're being about this. It's incredibly weird and alienating. I guess I'll just go line by line.
It's interesting that radlibs can sound just like the fuckers who defend skullgirls.
Do you also find it "interesting" how perverts and leftists both oppose forcing women to wear burqas?
I never said shit about how any of them are actually dressed, only about how their clothing is drawn,
Obviously the way they're dressed is relevant, and if they were dressed less conservatively, you'd 100% use that as evidence for your position. You don't get to write that off on the basis that you didn't mention it, you didn't mention it for a reason.
but just like you so readily misunderstand this as though I was reacting to a picture of actual women rather than drawings
Nowhere did I do this, this is an outright lie.
This is not the case, it's just horny posting, and it's telling that half the replies I got the first time were obtuse ones like this and the other half were "actually the artist is a lesbian [and maybe trans? idr] so actually you are attacking the sexual expression of a minority who already frequently has their sexuality attacked". The premises are different but the conclusion is the same, and these two camps don't dispute each other. Really makes you think
Oh my god! It's almost like two people can arrive at the same conclusion for different reasons! And both lines of reasoning are correct. It's both less horny than you creeps are making it out to be, and even if it were that horny it wouldn't be that bad. Either way, your nonsense is by far the bigger issue that needs to be addressed.
Honestly I'm not even going to try reasoning anymore because this shit where you project your own horniness onto a perfectly ordinary drawing is both really gross and pretty offensive. You are being far more sexist and objectifying than this art ever was.
Here's your PPB
Do you also find it "interesting" how perverts and leftists both oppose forcing women to wear burqas?
Seriously go fuck yourself. What I'm talking about is the bad faith bullshitting about "this isn't objectifying" by pretending that they don't have the most basic media literacy. Your comment right here is actually the most perfect example! I never said a single thing about the attire of actual women. I am talking about a drawing! (I'm also not even talking about the wardrobe in the drawing, but that's too difficult a concept so we will set it aside).
There is a profound difference between how a woman expresses herself with the clothes she wears on her own body versus how someone draws imaginary characters. Equivocating between disliking waifus and insisting on burqas is the most
- tier rhetorical bullshit imaginable. These aren't real women in the real world, how does this need to be explained?Nowhere did I do this, this is an outright lie.
Not only was it not a lie, you demonstrated that exact point again in the part I previously quoted by again conflating the politics of personal presentation vs art of fictional characters.
Obviously the way they're dressed is relevant, and if they were dressed less conservatively, you'd 100% use that as evidence for your position. You don't get to write that off on the basis that you didn't mention it, you didn't mention it for a reason.
I'm not complaining about something that is a complete non-issue. If it was an issue, perhaps I would complain about it, but the people characterizing my argument as though this non-issue was my issue are mistaken.
I think the more liberal attire is suitable for the USA waifu just like Eliza's costume in Skullgirls suits her character (for mostly-different reasons). There are other waifus for whom it would be more gross, as there are Skullgirls characters for whom it is very gross (though these reasons only partially overlap).
I never said a single thing about the attire of actual women. I am talking about a drawing!
I never said you said anything about actual women! You're lying again.
What I said is that two people can both oppose your puritanical bullshit for different reasons, and I used a real life analogy to illustrate that point.
I'm not complaining about something that is a complete non-issue. If it was an issue, perhaps I would complain about it, but the people characterizing my argument as though this non-issue was my issue are mistaken.
So you can dissect every piece of art and if you find one single element that you consider horny, the rest of the drawing is completely irrelevant? What fucking bullshit standard is that? Completely unreasonable.
You go fuck yourself
I never said you said anything about actual women! You're lying again.
What I said is that two people can both oppose your puritanical bullshit for different reasons, and I used a real life analogy to illustrate that point.
The question of restricting dress in real life and criticism of fictional characters are wildly different. I never said you said I am talking about real women, I said you are conflating these two subjects, which you continue to do. Pin-up girls (such as are painted on bomber jets or whatever) are typically not feminist, and indeed are typically misogynist. Forbidding women from dressing the way pin-up girls do in that art would also be not feminist, and indeed is typically misogynist. This is not a contradiction. I have no problem with women dressing as they want, and I also think the way women are portrayed in media should be scrutinized because of deeply-embedded cultural sexism.
So you can dissect every piece of art and if you find one single element
"Why would a communist have tolerance for some kind of 'ruthless criticism of all that exists'?!?"
More seriously, there is a difference between diegetic and non-diegetic sexualization*. The central point I made in my original comment is about non-diegetic sexualization, through the process of choosing which details to remove and which not to in the highly abstract medium of cartooning. Choice of dress would be a diegetic method of sexualizing the character which would much more strongly suggest the characters trying to appear sexually attractive, which I think would make the art more overtly creepy, but that's not the only thing that can possibly be criticized and not especially worth mentioning in the line of criticism that I took (though I humored it with the aside about the US waifu).
*If a decent feminist with media criticism abilities (so not you) would like to contend that sexualization is necessarily non-diegetic and I am therefore talking about sexualizing via character writing vs audience perspective, that's fine.
Do you understand what analogy is? The point I was making is that you can't write off criticism just because someone bad makes a similar criticism. You're being deliberately obtuse just to accuse me of shit.
the US waifu).
*If a decent feminist with media criticism abilities (so not you)
Sorry I just find it really comedic how you put those two so close together
Do you understand what analogy is? The point I was making is that you can't write off criticism just because someone bad makes a similar criticism. You're being deliberately obtuse just to accuse me of shit.
At that point you probably shouldn't have made the comparison with an incomparable situation about how real women dress and instead just talked about how both racists and communists hate Kamala Harris or something. As it is, the radlib argument and the skullgirl closet-incel argument are basically "the curtains are blue!" "you are basically policing how women present," and the much-beloved classic "it's all in your head".
Sorry I just find it really comedic how you put those two so close together
Did you not see the US waifu? She would have honestly been the best line you had at an actual attempt at refutation instead of just calling me a creep and a liar over and over.
just calling me a creep and a liar over and over.
Why shouldn't I say what's true?
If this is just a last word thing, I can stop. You don't seem to be offering arguments anymore.
Then do it lol.
My argument is that when you look at a ordinary picture of cartoon women and immediately start calling them waifus and talking about their faces being covered in cum and analyzing every detail like they're a slab of meat, the fact that you're trying to position yourself as "anti-horny" and "feminist" doesn't make it true and doesn't make you one bit less of a creep. You're literally posting hornier things than anyone else on the site.
Fuck off before you scare away people who are actually cool and worth welcoming.
He should've just say that waifuing countries is cringe and left it at that instead of meticulously analyzing the breast size of some drawing.
It's so much worse than anything the hornyposters have said to the point that I'm about willing to offer critical support to them in their struggle against this creep.
but only once they wash their hands.
The drawing is mid but notice how some poster put "coomer artist" in the bottom
The struggle session to define the line between "bodies are allowed to exist and be drawn and represented" and "this makes me horny and therefore is bad" is endless. Folks who want representation vs folks who get horny at bodies being represented. Any drawn body that makes someone horny could be considered bad but also good if it makes someone feel represented.
I'm not saying this image meets the criteria for representation or not or horniness or not because I'm not represented in it and it doesn't make me horny but if it's not this one it's gonna be another one
"coom" = "cum"
Generally means someone who's overly horny or sex-obsessed
Obviously we have rules against it, that's not my point, though I actually think this is accidentally an interesting window into the mindset because your statement taken as-is (so without the ahegao part) is not necessarily justified. It's entirely possible to have a sexually explicit situation that is not erotica, as well as sexually explicit erotica in which a woman participant is not sexualized, because that term doesn't just mean "looks sexually attractive" but in fact refers to sexual objectification, which is not a necessary component for a female character in either of the examples I just mentioned. My point in mentioning this is that whether or not something is sexual in real life is very different from how to analyze an artistic depiction of it.
But that's all a tangent. To be clear, what I was saying was not that the two situations are the same (or even particularly similar), but merely that "there are people who look roughly like this in real life" does not mean "this art isn't misogynist," giving the example of something that does exist in real life where we would in fact expect the artistic depiction to be misogynist. It's like if someone said "All amphibians have four legs" and I gave the counterexample of Caecilians (which have zero). It's not a representative example of what amphibians in general are like, but shows nonetheless that the inference is false. Sometimes a reasonable heuristic is not deductively valid.
Oh, I was also complaining about the liberal self-victimizing tact of derailing any conversation about what one "should" do into one of what someone "can" do, especially by imagining that I am somehow trying to "not allow" anything. But I'm basically just talking to myself at this point.
If the curtains are just blue, I don't think there's anything more to say about it. It seems obvious from the details I put in my initial comment, but if you just shrug at that then I can't really say more, any more than I can persuade a libertarian that empathy is cool and good. Perhaps someone more patient or motivated could pick apart "What makes you say that they are all attractive? What do you suppose the significance of the only five characters all being attractive women is?" etc. but who cares? Honestly the thing that pisses me off isn't the picture itself but some people (not necessarily you) being so fucking obtuse about it. Just admit that they are little national waifus and move on! (again, not necessarily you)
I find the sensibilities of the artist gross, but she's not someone I actually know and there are thousands of grosser artists on twitter and hundreds of thousands elsewhere, so it's not like I'm particularly offended by it.
Imagine conflating "existing and being depicted" to "being covered in cum." You're the problem
what if I am a terminally online grass-starved labor aristokkkrat. what then, mr marx?
The Bolsheviks are the only example I can think of who used to be terminally "on paper"
If you even suggest something beyond organizing a union you get called a fed.
Well on the internet, there isn't much material difference between a fed and a fed magnet
greater potentials
Metaphysical nonsense my dear boy
What is metaphysical about the recognition of possibilities? Don't we recognize the possibility for capitalism to transform into socialism under the right conditions (revolution)?
There's nothing wrong with acknowledging possibilities, but this notion of being appear to peer into the core of individuals and see some 'potential' clearly enough to rank them is just nonsensical to me. It smacks of wanting to get credit without having to put any of the actual work in.
Sounds more like they're trying to encourage people rather than compliment them
How is this post peering into the core of individuals? The post is concerned with the external relations of 2 types of people: one who primarily benefits from the capitalist/imperialist world system and is incentivized to continue supporting it and someone who primarily does not and has read enough to at least identify as someone who is against this system. Who is more likely to go on to participate in an attempt to overthrow it?
I don't mean to be so... argumentative but I don't really see this kind of post as a bad thing. Like someone else said in another reply this just reads as an encouragement for people to politically organize.
Who is more likely to go on to participate in an attempt to overthrow it?
Where are these probabilities coming from in order to answer questions like this? I reckon the former is more probable but I openly haven't done any work to make the case for that being true, and neither does the post. It handwaves the issue away with talk of potential.
It's vibes based posting and nothing more. At best it's just to drive up morale or pat ourselves on the back for dunking on a random lib that stumbled in and jerked over how well adjusted they are.
That's interesting. I saw it more as they were talking about the probability this would happen according to some heuristic or rule of thumb. Like what would be different from saying that a person who drives an SUV is more likely to survive a collision compared to someone in a sedan? There's kinda an ordering and it's based on an assumption and the assumption could make sense or not.
They didn't really argue it though which I would have preferred, we don't really get to know why they came to that conclusion. If they do have some information or novel insight simply stating it doesn't do very much for me or I'd imagine others who view this.
^Is that kinda what you were referring to?
Yeah that's one of my big stumbling blocks to things like this. Like sure it sounds true, but is it actually true or are we just patting ourselves on the back for some ethereal intangible potential that we apparently have.
okay which 90 page pamphlet do i have to read to find out what a labor aristocrat actually is and whether it's a real thing or not? cuz at first glance it sounds like a futile attempt to rescue the concept of a fundamentally revolutionary working class in the post-soviet era of total defeat and class fragmentation.
