Opinion Criticizing the seemingly innocuous

[Nicodemous52]

So recently I'm watching a video from Bellular News, and in this episode they talk about all kinds of things. One portion in particular was speaking to the criticism of The Last of Us II, and how some of it is valid, and some of it is pointless like attacking Ellie's sexuality or how Abby is atypically buff for a female. I'll leave a link to the video if you care to watch it for yourself, but I'm responding to a rather small portion of it.

I'm torn buy this. Criticism, at the end of the day is just expressing one's opinion. Even when people get into the technical nitty gritty, they are still just giving an opinion, and trying to back it up with seemingly objective reasons, but really, it's just more opinion to attempt to validate the other opinion. On a personal level, I would tend to agree, these things don't matter in the grand scheme thing things. Except...

A lot of people have become sensitive because they are aware there are folks in the industry that are there to push their politics and their narratives first and foremost. While things like sexuality or and bucking gender norms are not worthy of criticism in and of themselves, they become worthy of criticism when there are there just to push an agenda. When they are not an organic part of the art. And you can hardly blame the consumer for having trouble discerning the difference.

For example, there is a game slated to come out later this year called, Haven (I'll leave a link to the steam page). The game has a lot going for it, and I'm looking forward to the full release. But, I found myself wrestling with my own thoughts during the demo. The idea of the game is you play as a couple, two young lovers living ruff on some distant planet they crashed on fleeing something that isn't revealed in the demo. The female protagonist is the mechanic of the two, while the male is the cook. The male is the super smart kind of nerdy one, while the female is a bit ruff around the edges and (potentially) shows a small penchant for violence.

I myself am a damn fine cook, and I've been told by an ex before and I quote "you're the woman in this relationship" (that's a long, long story) so this isn't what bothered me. Nothing bothered me per se. But what did pop in my head, what I did wrestle with with was how organic was it? Did they reverse the typical roles and personalities because that's just the way the characters ended up and were envisioned? Were they inspired by folks the creators know? Or, did they just want to make the man do typically "woman" like things, and the girl to typical "man" like things, for the sake of pushing agendas and narratives?

Ultimately, it doesn't seem like the story itself is going to pushing anything in any particular direction (though it could easily change or be different in the full game when it comes out). I'm still looking forward to the game but I don't think I can hardly be blamed for wondering. And, I don't think folks can hardly be blamed for being tired of it, when it's merely there to pander or push. And the general consumers are not the ones that created this environment where everything is automatically suspect.

I guess my point is, if any criticism is valid, then all criticism is valid, and it's not the fault of the consumers that even seemingly benign and innocuous material has become suspicious and a point of contention. If people had not shoved their politics and there agendas in the faces of consumers, then they could still be in the art, subconsciously pushing that agenda. But, we can't go back to that now, because the people that would push, have done so too hard and openly for consumers to go back to their former blissful ignorance.

 

[Meicyn]

Who determines what is an organic part of art? How do you define that, exactly?

Politics is about life. Audio and visual media can provide a form of escapism, but at other times they function as a mirror. Furthering the escapism, sometimes idealism is explored.

Case in point, Star Trek. I mean the original, with Shatner, Nimoy, Kelly, and the rest of the gang. Aside from the fact that it was essentially a cowboys in space show where much of the episodes devolved into fist fights like many westerns of that era, it was pushing an agenda and made no effort to hide it. In the midst of the Cold War and the Civil Rights era, and a viewer generation who was around when World War II happened, you had a Soviet, a black lady, and a Japanese man on the bridge. We think nothing of this now, but it was shocking for the era. If Twitter had existed back then, I’m sure we’d hear similar rhetoric to today’s outrage.

I remember experiencing similar talk with Deep Space Nine and Voyager, growing up with it. Forced diversity by having a black man and a woman in charge of their groups, respectively. Nowadays no one thinks twice. Folks sure do speak fondly of DS9 in retrospect. I specifically recall a comment when I was a kid that Sisko only got promoted to Captain because black people complained, and that he didn’t “earn” that promotion.

I’d be lying if I said that media isn’t hamfisted with the delivery sometimes, but that’s a problem with the writers and this problem isn’t confined to “forced diversity”. Case in point, the infamous Playstation Vita advert in the middle of an episode of House of Cards. They couldn’t possibly have made a worse and more unbelievable scene.

Honestly, I think you’re letting cynicism rule your life. Cut through the social media noise. You should stop focusing on whether “forced diversity“ is an actual problem and instead redirect your attention to enjoying games. There’s a lot of hate being thrown back and forth both for and against TLOU2 and I’m just back here playing The Division 2 because it’s fun.

 

[Nicodemous52]

Star Trek was always about a Marxist utopia in the distant future. But, that didn't used to be the focus of the show or even so obvious. In fact, I'd argue that always took a back seat to the actual story itself.

That's the difference. Today, it's becoming the entire point. (in media, not Star Trek per se)

 

[Meicyn]

Don’t agree in light of the evidence. The episode where you had television’s first interracial kiss between Uhura and Kirk was a perfect example of in your face politics, and the writing was tailored to push the “forced diversity”.

The Cosby Show was entirely designed to showcase an upper middle class black family, seemingly outlandish back then.

Family Ties was a show about a young conservative growing up in a household run by liberal parents, a reflection of the Reagan era.

Heavy Metal music was bringing “the occult” into the home and was a threat to America in the 70s and 80s.

The Simpsons was a show I was not allowed to watch when I was really young, because it was too provacative and vulgar.

Politics has been in the forefront in various media for decades. It is certainly more accessible these days as the internet has allowed every Joe Schmoe to have a bullhorn to bring attention to their latest grievance. But sensationalism about the problem with media in its various forms has been ongoing. Freedom of expression is part of the package.

 

[iceyd]

At the end of the day the art needs to be judged on its own merits.

The creators or critics jerking each other off over reversed gender roles is outside noise. Once their time passes, and once their message is no longer relevant to the times, all that's left is the work itself.

 

[Nicodemous52]

You both bring up good points for me to consider on. Iceyd, I'd say you are more or less spot on.

Meicyn, you are not wrong, but something keeps me from agreeing with you either. I'll have to think about it for awhile.

 

[iceyd]

I think it's a super important concern you touch on because many struggle with separating works from their creators or from political narratives. And to Meicyn's point, people and their works are products of their time, so it's natural to a degree.

I don't think there's a perfect way to separate the two when judging a particular work, or to trust that someone isn't influenced by it in some way. But you can definitely tell when someone is trying to critique in good faith versus overlaying their world view atop a piece of fiction.

So in the case of Abby in TLoU2, yes it makes me roll my eyes the level the designers took to what I think is pushing a message. But I am not fond of reviewers who bash (or praise) the character itself for being a political message, and I do my best to not let myself judge the game world based on outside factors.

And I especially never take part in telling artists what they can or cannot do, and that's been the only line I've defended since all of this became the discussion in gaming.

 

[Nicodemous52]

Meicyn, I think I figured out why I don't wholly agree with you, even though you are not wrong.

In the case of Plato's Stepchildren, that's one episode out of nearly eighty episodes. Granted it, it's not the only one to have pointed on the nose commentary, but it is one of a handful, of fairly few in total. Such narratives were the key subjects of particular episodes, but they were never the key subject of the show as a whole.

It would be too hard for me to research today (because that's something else you were not wrong about, I am cynical and I'm fairly skeptical too) but how did Roddenberry and crew respond to any controversy? Did they even respond to the fall out at all? If so, was there response to tell the audience they are bigots and man babies? Was it to tell the audience if you don't like it, don't watch it? I somehow doubt it. And with so much revisionism and so many agendas, what the actual public response was, and how it was met by Roddenberry and the network is not something I can easily find out, free of a modern lens and modern sensibilities and biases.

And either way, one could point out that particular episode happened in the third and final season, so it could be argued that perhaps the public no more liked pandering and having agendas pushed on them back then either, as the show did not out live the season that episode aired.So while you are not wrong, I still can't agree with you fully, because it's much too complex to boil it all down to essentially "this is the way it's always been". Which, you have to admit there is some amount of irony using a seemingly conservative argument to defend a seemingly liberal stance.

 

[Meicyn]

I think this is where we share common ground despite our politics probably diverging on many subjects. I lean left, but if I were to classify myself, I suppose you could call me a blue dog Democrat. Maybe? I dunno, I break ranks heavily with the party on issues like the Bill of Rights where I believe the right of individuals to arm themselves cannot be curtailed (which is especially funny given that the left doesn’t think citizens should be able to have guns but simultaneously want to dismantle the police). I also heavily support the first amendment, to the point that despite my disdain of groups like the Westboro Baptist Church broadcasting “God hates fags”, I fully support their right to say that. And I’m a gay dude, for context.

Everything is up for critique, even subjects that may make folks uncomfortable. Everything is fair game in art, even pushing certain agendas. And it goes both ways, really. I think the “forced diversity” argument is weak and nonsensical, since the counterpoint is that the minority is subjected to majority content constantly. Having a turn once in awhile is not a bad thing. And pushing boundaries has always been a key part of America. However, if folks express discomfort, they have a right to express it.

This is where I diverge heavily with the way online discussion typically goes, where folks get shutdown or cancelled. I get annoyed by the left for this, who spend so much time talking at people rather than with them. Human behavior kicks in where folks are inclined to double down when attacked from all fronts while being denied even the slightest acknowledgment. I find cancel culture harmful because there’s no opportunity for reflection, interaction, or growth. It’s just two groups trying to shut each other up, and the cycle perpetuates.

I am reminded of an old interview on Crossfire where Frank Zappa was defending his music against his interviewers and a Democratic strategist who wanted him censored permanently, insisting that Zappa was pushing a pro-incest message among other things. At one point, the Democrat strategist even suggested that Zappa might consider incestual relationships to be preferable. The tone of the discussion was condescending the entire time and it was almost infuriating to watch, especially in hindsight because the music was being framed at the time as a threat to the Republic.

I guess what I’m saying is because my reply is all over the place, is that media is always pushing the limits, and some folks end up being uncomfortable as a result. And that’s fine. But that also means that critics are allowed to voice their opinions, which may be uncomfortable as well, and their livelihoods, and even perhaps their humanity, should not be denied as a result of their voicing an opinion, regardless of how one personally feels about it. Freedom of expression is foundational to a functioning democracy. I fully support it. I think this discussion about muscular women is stupid, but I’m not about to scream that Angry Joe needs to be cancelled or whatever like I’m seeing on places like Resetera. I know bullying when I see it, having experienced so much of it growing up, and I do not like what I see.

 

[Nova]

I guess my point is, if any criticism is valid, then all criticism is valid

But the gaming community having SJWs do not approve of that. Logic works something like this. Opinion from trans to cis community is "Freedom of speech". But the opinion from the cis community to trans is taken as racist, transphobic, anti freedom of expression and oppressive. So the thing with attack on the LOU folks just tells you that the SJW community which is deep rooted in the fanfolks and gaming is affecting normal society.

 

[Nicodemous52]

But the gaming community having SJWs do not approve of that. Logic works something like this. Opinion from trans to cis community is "Freedom of speech". But the opinion from the cis community to trans is taken as racist, transphobic, anti freedom of expression and oppressive. So the thing with attack on the LOU folks just tells you that the SJW community which is deep rooted in the fanfolks and gaming is affecting normal society.

I have some sympathy to the idea that if folks don't feel safe to speak, they wont speak, and if we have people remaining silent, then we don't really have free speech with diverse voices. There is some truth in there, and that's the insidious part. Because if they bought their own bullshit, they would not be seeking to become the oppressors. They don't want elevate the status of marginalized people to that of everyone else, they want to make them over and above, special and beyond reproach.

 

[Nova]

They don't want elevate the status of marginalized people to that of everyone else, they want to make them over and above, special and beyond reproach.

But history has a proof that nothing in this world can stay beyond reproach forever. everything goes down. and especially it goes down if your intent is bad or have some negative motive. You can keep the positivity or some positive thing on the top of society for some time but even that will be dragged..