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?”
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
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.
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.
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.
