Marvel's Retailer Breakfast falls off the rails 0

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, ygogolak said:

So, no legitimate response, then...? My comments were so outrageously beyond-the-pale, so wildly out of touch with reality, only four facepalm emoticons will suffice...?

Or, what I said makes sense, but you don't want to acknowledge that...?

Gotta be one or the other.

[ygogolak]

Just now, RockMyAmadeus said:

So, no legitimate response, then...? My comments were so outrageously beyond-the-pale, so wildly out of touch with reality, only four facepalm emoticons will suffice...?

Or, what I said makes sense, but you don't want to acknowledge that...?

Gotta be one or the other.

There's nothing intelligent enough to respond to. It's not the 1970's anymore when John Stewart was a "shock".

[RockMyAmadeus]

6 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

There's nothing intelligent enough to respond to. It's not the 1970's anymore when John Stewart was a "shock".

That is, of course, your opinion, and a convenient excuse to dodge making a reasoned response. My opinion, naturally, is different. If you choose to be offended, you will be, guaranteed. If you are offended over "slurs",  you give power to those making them, and accomplish their goals. They set out to offend, and, by choice, you oblige them. I am not offended by your slur, even though it was directed personally at me. Can you do the same...?

As far as not being the 70's anymore, that's been true for almost 40 years. Not sure why you're bringing that up, unless you didn't understand that we've had diversity in comics for a very long time, have had diversity the entire time since then, and will continue to have it, because diverse people are interested in telling diverse stories, without feeling the need to force it.

Edited October 14, 2017 by RockMyAmadeus

[ygogolak]

I'm offended by people who don't want to advance society and treat each others as equals. Ignoring something and acting like didn't happen just perpetuates this problem.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

40 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That is, of course, your opinion, and a convenient excuse to dodge making a reasoned response. My opinion, naturally, is different. If you choose to be offended, you will be, guaranteed. If you are offended over "slurs",  you give power to those making them, and accomplish their goals. They set out to offend, and, by choice, you oblige them. I am not offended by your slur, even though it was directed personally at me. Can you do the same...?

As far as not being the 70's anymore, that's been true for almost 40 years. Not sure why you're bringing that up, unless you didn't understand that we've had diversity in comics for a very long time, have had diversity the entire time since then, and will continue to have it, because diverse people are interested in telling diverse stories, without feeling the need to force it.

One does not "choose to be offended." That is an emotional reaction, not a choice.

One may not personally be offended by something, but can still recognize that some offensive was said. That is also not a choice; that is a critical examination of what is said. Granted that there will be varying levels of ability in employing critical reasoning to come to a conclusion as to whether something is offensive. But pointing out that someone is being offensive isn't giving power to them.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

One does not "choose to be offended." That is an emotional reaction, not a choice.

One may not personally be offended by something, but can still recognize that some offensive was said. That is also not a choice; that is a critical examination of what is said. Granted that there will be varying levels of ability in employing critical reasoning to come to a conclusion as to whether something is offensive. But pointing out that someone is being offensive isn't giving power to them.

Sorry, but that's not true. Are you suggesting you don't have control over your emotions...? Was I offended when ygogolak said there was "nothing intelligent enough to respond to", despite objective evidence to the contrary? Nope. I chose not to be. 

What is the difference between being "personally" offended, and merely offended? One can recognize the intent to offend, and still choose not to be offended.

Are you suggesting a critical examination is not something someone chooses to do...?

As to your last statement, you are quite correct: pointing out that someone is being offensive isn't giving power to them, and I did not, and would not, suggest otherwise. But being offended at what they say IS...and that's the whole point, here.

(This new board is absolutely terrible at quoting functions. Just awful.)

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

5 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

One does not "choose to be offended." That is an emotional reaction, not a choice.

One may not personally be offended by something, but can still recognize that some offensive was said. That is also not a choice; that is a critical examination of what is said. Granted that there will be varying levels of ability in employing critical reasoning to come to a conclusion as to whether something is offensive. But pointing out that someone is being offensive isn't giving power to them.

What I find interesting about the lack of understanding of the difference (as has been evidenced on these boards in numerous threads about diversity), is that the people that seem to be the first to accuse so-called Social Justice Warriors of being snowflakes for being offended (an emotional reaction), when actually they're pointing out that someone or something is being offensive (a critical reaction), seem to be the most emotional about whatever the subject of contention is.

[ygogolak]

2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Sorry, but that's not true. Are you suggesting you don't have control over your emotions...? Was I offended when ygogolak said there was "nothing intelligent enough to respond to", despite objective evidence to the contrary? Nope. I chose not to be. 

What is the difference between being "personally" offended, and merely offended? One can recognize the intent to offend, and still choose not to be offended.

Are you suggesting a critical examination is not something someone chooses to do...?

As to your last statement, you are quite correct: pointing out that someone is being offensive isn't giving power to them, and I did not, and would not, suggest otherwise. But being offended at what they say IS...and that's the whole point, here.

(This new board is absolutely terrible at quoting functions. Just awful.)

[RockMyAmadeus]

47 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

I'm offended by people who don't want to advance society and treat each others as equals. Ignoring something and acting like didn't happen just perpetuates this problem.

Of your first statement, I have no doubt. Do you recognize, however, that your definition of "advancing" and that of others may not be the same? And that your definition of "treating people as equals" and that of others also may not be the same? What type of "equality" are you talking about? Should I treat the ignorant the same way I treat the wise? Should I treat the journeyman the same way I treat the novice? Should I treat the young the same way I treat the old? Should I treat the talented the same way I treat those without? Without definitions, "treat each others (sic) as equals" has no meaning.

Do you mean equals in outcome, or equals in opportunity?

As to your second statement, I disagree entirely. Ignoring something that is offensive for the sake of being offensive is wisdom.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Sorry, but that's not true. Are you suggesting you don't have control over your emotions...? Was I offended when ygogolak said there was "nothing intelligent enough to respond to", despite objective evidence to the contrary? Nope. I chose not to be. 

What is the difference between being "personally" offended, and merely offended? One can recognize the intent to offend, and still choose not to be offended.

Are you suggesting a critical examination is not something someone chooses to do...?

As to your last statement, you are quite correct: pointing out that someone is being offensive isn't giving power to them, and I did not, and would not, suggest otherwise. But being offended at what they say IS...and that's the whole point, here.

(This new board is absolutely terrible at quoting functions. Just awful.)

One has control over how to act on their emotions. But if one's emotions were a choice, why wouldn't we all simply choose to be happy? Or choose to be in love with those that are in love with us? If emotions were a choice, there would be no sadness, or hatred, or fear, etc. in the world. To suggest otherwise is silly.

I don't see a difference between "offended" and "'personally' offended"; they're both personal. Some people add a word for impact. 

"One can recognize the intent to offend, and still choose not to be offended." That's identifying something as offensive. There are plenty of things that I recognize as offensive that I myself am not offended by because it's not targeted at me. But that's not a choice.

On the point of quoting we are in complete agreement.

[ygogolak]

2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Of your first statement, I have no doubt. Do you recognize, however, that your definition of "advancing" and that of others may not be the same? And that your definition of "treating people as equals" and that of others also may not be the same? What type of "equality" are you talking about? Should I treat the ignorant the same way I treat the wise? Should I treat the journeyman the same way I treat the novice? Should I treat the young the same way I treat the old? Should I treat the talented the same way I treat those without? Without definitions, "treat each others (sic) as equals" has no meaning.

Do you mean equals in outcome, or equals in opportunity?

As to your second statement, I disagree entirely. Ignoring something that is offensive for the sake of being offensive is wisdom.

Not sure what is so hard to understand about this. If you're using a derogatory term towards a group of people that is not treating people equally. And you have continued to ignore responding to what actually happened at this breakfast, so I assume it did happen which was fine by you because you "ignored" it.

[RockMyAmadeus]

6 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

What I find interesting about the lack of understanding of the difference (as has been evidenced on these boards in numerous threads about diversity), is that the people that seem to be the first to accuse so-called Social Justice Warriors of being snowflakes for being offended (an emotional reaction), when actually they're pointing out that someone or something is being offensive (a critical reaction), seem to be the most emotional about whatever the subject of contention is.

I don't see the lack of understanding of the difference that you mention, nor do I see the emotional responses by the accusers of which you speak.

Do you have any specific examples in mind?

Your sentence here seems to be a bit muddled. You say "so-called"...do you think there aren't SJWs? Do you think that such people are really just "pointing out that someone or something is being offensive", objectively, or they're actually offended? There are many clues to indicate which response is which. After all, you use the word "seem", which means you're not making a definitive argument.

[SquareChaos]

Are you guys even still talking about the retailer incident? Or are you just arguing nuance about something one or the other said seven or eight replies ago?  

 

As for why Marvel is doing what they're doing - there are likely too many people involved for them to be doing it for a signal purpose. The company is also more complex than that - I'm relatively certain they don't have a single sheet of paper with a single bullet point stating that their business plan is to "Increase PR by way of diversity." I'd say they likely have at least two bullet points in their plan 

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Of your first statement, I have no doubt. Do you recognize, however, that your definition of "advancing" and that of others may not be the same? And that your definition of "treating people as equals" and that of others also may not be the same? What type of "equality" are you talking about? Should I treat the ignorant the same way I treat the wise? Should I treat the journeyman the same way I treat the novice? Should I treat the young the same way I treat the old? Should I treat the talented the same way I treat those without? Without definitions, "treat each others (sic) as equals" has no meaning.

Do you mean equals in outcome, or equals in opportunity?

As to your second statement, I disagree entirely. Ignoring something that is offensive for the sake of being offensive is wisdom.

I can't speak for ygogolak, but on the point of treating people equally, I'm in the camp that that applies to opportunity, to aspects which one has no control over. But equality of opportunity doesn't necessarily mean treating people exactly the same, as we all have different starting point in life. But to dive into that any further would probably get all of this removed as political commentary, so I'm going to stop there.

As for your point about ignoring something that is offensive for the sake of being offensive: if everyone does that, then sure, that might be wise. But if there are people that are legitimately offended by something, to not call out that the source if being offensive is anything but wise, I think. Ignoring it is giving them power.

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

One has control over how to act on their emotions. But if one's emotions were a choice, why wouldn't we all simply choose to be happy? Or choose to be in love with those that are in love with us? If emotions were a choice, there would be no sadness, or hatred, or fear, etc. in the world. To suggest otherwise is silly.

Really...?

Why wouldn't we all simply choose to be happy...?

Isn't THAT an interesting question....?

Do you really believe that people don't willingly choose to be sad, or "hateful" (dubious as to being an emotion, but I'll go with it for the sake of the argument), or afraid...?

Why do people willingly see sad movies...?

Or horror movies...?

6 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

I don't see a difference between "offended" and "'personally' offended"; they're both personal. Some people add a word for impact.

I agree completely, which is why the distinction in your earlier statement: "One may not personally be offended by something, but can still recognize that some offensive was said" didn't make too much sense. Of course, one can be offended on behalf of someone else, and that's where I thought you were going with it, because that's a whole different facet to the discussion.

14 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

"One can recognize the intent to offend, and still choose not to be offended." That's identifying something as offensive.

Yes, I'm agreeing with you. That's why I said it. 

15 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

There are plenty of things that I recognize as offensive that I myself am not offended by because it's not targeted at me. But that's not a choice.

I'm sorry, what...? So, you can recognize something as offensive, but you're not offended by it...but it's not a choice that you're not offended by it...? Being offended is a completely involuntary emotional reaction...? "Phew. Good thing that wasn't aimed at ME, or I would have no choice but to be offended!" 

...are you really suggesting this? 

 

 

 

 

 

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

6 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I don't see the lack of understanding of the difference that you mention, nor do I see the emotional responses by the accusers of which you speak.

Do you have any specific examples in mind?

Your sentence here seems to be a bit muddled. You say "so-called"...do you think there aren't SJWs? Do you think that such people are really just "pointing out that someone or something is being offensive", objectively, or they're actually offended? There are many clues to indicate which response is which. After all, you use the word "seem", which means you're not making a definitive argument.

Not in this thread; I'm thinking back to some older threads. The Batgirl/Joker cover comes to mind; fanboys throwing a fit because a cover was pulled. There were others around that time as well (the Manara Spider-woman cover, probably others I'm forgetting).

SJW is a derogatory term used to lump together all of those who call out social injustice. There is a tiny tiny portion of that group that is unreasonable, but it's clear the intention is to make that portion represent the whole by lumping everyone together. Not necessarily on these boards, but certainly elsewhere.

I use the word "seem," because you can't always gauge with 100% accuracy by someone's comments on the internet. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

15 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

19 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Of your first statement, I have no doubt. Do you recognize, however, that your definition of "advancing" and that of others may not be the same? And that your definition of "treating people as equals" and that of others also may not be the same? What type of "equality" are you talking about? Should I treat the ignorant the same way I treat the wise? Should I treat the journeyman the same way I treat the novice? Should I treat the young the same way I treat the old? Should I treat the talented the same way I treat those without? Without definitions, "treat each others (sic) as equals" has no meaning.

Do you mean equals in outcome, or equals in opportunity?

As to your second statement, I disagree entirely. Ignoring something that is offensive for the sake of being offensive is wisdom.

Not sure what is so hard to understand about this. If you're using a derogatory term towards a group of people that is not treating people equally. And you have continued to ignore responding to what actually happened at this breakfast, so I assume it did happen which was fine by you because you "ignored" it.

By whose definition is it derogatory? Yours? What if I disagree with you? 

And who says that, even if we both agree a term is derogatory, that that means one is "not treating people equally"...? Isn't equality of opportunity the real point of equality? If I say "man, Morlocks are so stupid!", but ensure that all Morlocks still have the same opportunity everyone else does, are they REALLY being treated unequally...?

As far as "continu(ing) to ignore responding (whatever "ignore responding" means) to what actually happened at this breakfast", I haven't ignored anything. If you have a direct question, ask it. I've answered every question posed to me so far. Why would you assume "it" (whatever you think "it" is; it's unclear at this point) "did happen", and why would you assume "it" would be fine by me, because I "ignored" it? Was my earlier response not clear...? Be direct, sir, and state your issues clearly.

(And...I may have mentioned this earlier...this WAS NOT a breakfast. Details, details, I know.)

But it does beg the question: if my comments aren't intelligent enough to respond to...why do you keep responding...? 

[ygogolak]

25 minutes ago, SquareChaos said:

Are you guys even still talking about the retailer incident? Or are you just arguing nuance about something one or the other said seven or eight replies ago?  

 

As for why Marvel is doing what they're doing - there are likely too many people involved for them to be doing it for a signal purpose. The company is also more complex than that - I'm relatively certain they don't have a single sheet of paper with a single bullet point stating that their business plan is to "Increase PR by way of diversity." I'd say they likely have at least two bullet points in their plan 

It starts in the HR department. Probably only a couple of people there.

[ygogolak]

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

By whose definition is it derogatory? Yours? What if I disagree with you? 

And who says that, even if we both agree a term is derogatory, that that means one is "not treating people equally"...? Isn't equality of opportunity the real point of equality? If I say "man, Morlocks are so stupid!", but ensure that all Morlocks still have the same opportunity everyone else does, are they REALLY being treated unequally...?

As far as "continu(ing) to ignore responding (whatever "ignore responding" means) to what actually happened at this breakfast", I haven't ignored anything. If you have a direct question, ask it. I've answered every question posed to me so far. Why would you assume "it" (whatever you think "it" is; it's unclear at this point) "did happen", and why would you assume "it" would be fine by me, because I "ignored" it? Was my earlier response not clear...? Be direct, sir, and state your issues clearly.

(And...I may have mentioned this earlier...this WAS NOT a breakfast. Details, details, I know.)

But it does beg the question: if my comments aren't intelligent enough to respond to...why do you keep responding...? 

You like to tread water in semantics, so I will do the same. That was a response to one of your comments. Not all in general.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Really...?

Why wouldn't we all simply choose to be happy...?

Isn't THAT an interesting question....?

Do you really believe that people don't willingly choose to be sad, or "hateful" (dubious as to being an emotion, but I'll go with it for the sake of the argument), or afraid...?

Why do people willingly see sad movies...?

Or horror movies...?

Choosing to be "hateful" (not the word I used, but whatever…) suggests to me a choice to follow through with an action. But "hatred" (the word I actually used) is an emotional reaction, not a choice.

7 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I agree completely, which is why the distinction in your earlier statement: "One may not personally be offended by something, but can still recognize that some offensive was said" didn't make too much sense. Of course, one can be offended on behalf of someone else, and that's where I thought you were going with it, because that's a whole different facet to the discussion.

"Personally" in this case was for clarity. I think it reads a little awkwardly without it, but the meaning is the same. One can claim to "be offended on behalf of someone else," but what I think that's actually saying is that they're recognizing something as being offensive, not that they're actually offended. But most people don't think about the difference, so conflate the two.

8 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I'm sorry, what...? So, you can recognize something as offensive, but you're not offended by it...but it's not a choice that you're not offended by it...? Being offended is a completely involuntary emotional reaction...? "Phew. Good thing that wasn't aimed at ME, or I would have no choice but to be offended!" 

...are you really suggesting this? 

I think my response above covers this, but yes. Being the target of an offensive comment is going to resonate with the target in a way that it won't with someone who is not the target of the comment. But the person who is not the target can still recognize how inappropriate a comment will be, even without that emotional reaction. I don't see why this is such a difficult concept.