The LiquidLegends Lounge - Page 310

To clarify: It's stoppable. I'm saying that for the people who are being oppressed (often in a lethal sense), it's very difficult to stop.



To clarify: By 'power relations' I meant to refer to a specific term used in the social sciences. The term is broad in scope, and includes institutional power relations (admins vs everyone else) as well as social or systemic power relations ("perception and social pressure or whatever"). There's lots of easily accessible research material you can find if you want to learn about how the latter is significant.

Regarding the 'ok' thing, I don't think we actually disagree.

.

To clarify: By "promote X-type of oppression" I don't mean to say that some group of people has an agenda that they're acting upon. I'm saying that they are creating/sustaining/reinforcing the validity of X-type oppression, although it is almost certainly not their intent to do so.

For example, objectifying women is in many cases just a specific instance/form of misogyny. I do agree with you that much of the discourse supposedly about objectification is overly concerned with (over-/hyper-)sexualizing women, which isn't the same thing as objectification and also isn't problematic for the same reasons as objectification.

The cisnorm thing was in regards to many of the things that come up in LLL from discussion regarding 'ladyboys', and sveeral other related topics. As I said, in and of itself, it's not much of a problem, so again I don't think we disagree necessarily.



I agree. To clarify: I was describing a social power dynamic as it exists (regardless of how it should be), and I gave an example of it acting positively (imo) as well as an example of it acting negatively (imo).



To clarify: I was specifically regarding when satire fails in it's point. Successful satire would be as you describe here.

Also to clarify: We are conceptualizing racism (for example) differently. You're using a common perception of racism that frames it as acts that individuals do. I would refer to this concept as discrimination, or individual oppression (as opposed to systemic or institutional). I was referring to systemic racism, which is when racist attitudes, values, norms, and social practices become normalized or accepted in a society and begin to benefit from the power relations ("perception and social pressure or whatever") of that society to perpetuate themselves. It's a property of a society rather than a property of individuals.

So to answer your questions, no, I don't think failed satire will cause someone to become more racist or more people to become racist (although actually the latter probabaly happens, too), but I do think that failed satire can reinforce the attitudes/values/etc as listed above. Obviously if we disagree fundamentally with the existence of social power dynamics and such as I've described then we're just not gonna get anywhere, but otherwise again I don't think we disagree with each other here.



To clarify: I was critiquing the validity of the idea that Sonnington wasn't being serious in a satirical way - In other words, I mean to say that either Sonnington was either (1) being completely serious, (2) failing at satire, or (3) making some other kind of comedy/joke-without-punchline. I think it was the third thing, possibly absurd comedy (but not satire)? I'm not particularly familiar with types of comedy aside from this one specific critique of failed satire.

I was indeed being dismissive. I'm also ok with Sonnington being dismissive towards me, which has basically only happened once and he's been pretty good about it otherwise (please note that I made a typo and used the word "similarly" when I meant to say "similar", here). I mostly included that bit (I'm referring to the tattoo thing btw) for completion's sake, kind of like the next quote thing in which I'm responding to a clear joke.



No, those qualities aren't logically disjunctive, so lacking one quality doesn't necessitate that you possess the other.



This is a fair critique. Generally, the common name for this is that I would be "speaking for" a group of people that I don't actually represent. It does encroach on free speech.

However, I didn't do this, and never said "we" (I think. I might have somewhere as a mistake? If so, 100% my bad and you're right to call me out on this). I agree that Zess is right if you interpret the post as Zess asking us not to speak on behalf of the whole forum, but I don't think that's the right interpretation of the post.



Well, that was the second discussion, the first was a sloppy mess of miscommunication that ended up somewhere completely different from where it started (K-pop -> miscommunications -> discussion of oppression -> miscommunications -> ???) which is why it's basically impossible to follow. Also I was mostly pissed off because of unrelated stress that iirc I explained to Parnage regarding university bureaucracy.

To clarify: By "please stop" I meant to convey the idea that I personally don't enjoy the posting of such ideas, but not speak for other forum members. Also I think the actual post was something like "could you not do the "especially girls" bullshit". Despite my long posts I'm actually pretty lazy with referring to previous pages so I'm not 100% on that one. I'm not against dismissiveness and I'm often very dismissive, particularly when it comes to basic questions that can be found via google. I do agree that my comment was dismissive, but not oppressive, for what that's worth.

Have the K-Popsmiths crossed the line?: no.
Are these pretty young ladies wearing proper attire?: fuck the notion of "proper attire". (technically a "yes" I suppose?)
Are their stunning dance moves pornographic?: idk it seems to me like sexual people masturbate to everything
Is this video over sexualized?: no
Are the K-Popsters moving further and further into deviant behaviour?: yes, but I don't think deviant = bad in any context

Also actually regarding the first question, I do have further questions that you might be able to answer. My interpretation of "k-popsmiths" is the people in the back who write songs / choreograph dances / direct videos / etc. Maybe this is the wrong interpretation. How much power do these people have, in terms of the production of k-pop stuff? For example, could they in theory coerce the singer/dancers into producing this song/video even if they weren't comfortable with it? If this is the case, then I have concerns and line-crossing becomes way more of a possibility to me. If the performers are doing this completely out of their free will and such, then I'm all for it.