SSCReader
1yr ago
Did you know many abuse victims lie that everything is ok? Especially when they have strong feelings towards the abuser? Do you know that they often overcompensate in front of other people?
Is it likely in this situation? Probably not. But its not impossible. I've worked with people who have been literally battered and still told their friends and family about how loving and wonderful the abuser was and helped them get jobs. So those statements are evidence she is lying, i agree. But they are not 100% proof. That is my point. That plus the settlement is strongly indicative. But people do settle because they feel its the best option even if they are in the right.
We roughly know she lied. But we cannot KNOW if the lie was the "he's great" part back then, or when she made the accusation or when she retracted the accusations after the settlement.
That is enough that Chris should not suffer consequences, but it isn't enough for us (in my view) to claim we have aboslute certainty.
Abuse victims are often not dealing with their emotions rationally, so if you see irrational outcomes it is not necessarily proof they are lying.
They may well be, and obviously the legal system has to err on the side of caution where credibility is concerned, but if you have dealt with abuse victims, you see a lot of lies in both directions depending and you can't necessarily discern the truth from them.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Same with The Little Mermaid, I've seen the original and I'm used to white Ariel, when she turns up as black I'm suddenly made aware that I'm not watching Ariel, I'm just watching some actress pretend to be a mermaid by saying the lines she's told to.
This seems a bit of an issue, we know Tom Cruise isn't a fighter pilot or a spy or a 6 foot 2 bruiser, so any famous actor should also pull you out. Or James Bond, played by different actors, with different accents and different hair colours and of different ages.
The original Little Mermaid was a cartoon, but the fact she is animated didn't wreck your immersion? Or the fact that she is a mythical sea creature with a talking singing crab et al? Why particularly is skin color the thing that breaks your immersion? This isn't a gotcha, I find it legitimately perplexing.
As an aside, I do have an amusing vision of a marine biologist complaining about how the Little Mermaid breaks his immersion because crabs don't sing like that, or a Greek classicist complaining about the fact that mermaids should really be bird women not fish women.
SSCReader
1yr ago
More like "bitches do be lying" AND "Chris do be a bit of a pushy dick"
More nuance than anti-contrarian.
SSCReader
1yr ago
I am a longtime member of the Codex as it happens. But i would point out if you look at Chris's own admissions he apologised for inappropriate sexual propositions and said there was some truth to the accusations.
The position seems to be he did do most/all the things in question but with consent. That the accusers public views shifted on that doesn't actually prove they are lying.
They may well be and indeed it is probably most likely but we don't "know" it.
Did she rationalize the events because she liked/loved/was in awe of Chris? Once emotion fell away did she see the truth?
Or was it just a vendetta? That seems most likely but we don't know it. I'm not taking issue with Chris being exonerated, some of my most favorite games he was involved in. Just being overly sure in our knowledge.
SSCReader
1yr ago
But Tolkien was very clear that Middle-earth was not an invented world, it was meant to be our own world as we have it right now, just that the tales were set in a very distant, mythological past.
Doesn't that mean that, the interpretations today, absolutely should have black dwarves et al? Our world is very different from his, from a skin tone perspective. An American interpretation should cast more black people and so on. That from your explanation seems very much in keeping to his perspective. Todays stories told in the mythological past. Like it or not America's story is intertwined with it's relationship with slavery and the fall out thereof.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Correct. Which is why we legally
treat people as innocent at that point. But that still doesn't mean you are gonna necessarily want OJ Simpson marrying your sister for example.
Accusations are not near enough evidence to lock someone up, they might be enough evidence to behave differently around that person.
SSCReader
1yr ago
And this is where all the race-swapping in pre-built fantasy worlds gets me. These are worlds that already have established phenotypes for it's inhabitants. Already have, and frequently center in the oral history told to the character, the movements of those peoples.
Except they are not the same version as the original. As mentioned above Ultimates Nick Fury is different than 616 Fury (originally at least). In this version of the LoTR history there are black dwarves. They can change the background so in that universe it is not regarded as "cucking their population" or whatever. Now the Doylist reason for that is increasing diversity representation or etc., and that is a reasonable position to oppose. But from a Watsonian perspective your pre-knowledge about how there would only be black characters because of post-racial globalization no longer holds. You can dislike the change, but you seem to be saying that it HAS to have the same background as our world. That black dwarves came from some Africa equivalent, rather than being a magical mutation, or any other reason under the sun. Perhaps when Aule created the seven fathers of the dwarfs, they were different shades and Valar magic means one seventh of the population will always be black. Your assumption seems to be that there can only be black characters in this version if they come from some far off place, and in Tolkien's original that may be the case. But this is not that. It is an adaption.
Tolkiens novel's may have had established phenotypes, but the adaptions may or may not. The black dwarf can be a native, so can a white dwarf (Grombrindal aside perhaps). Plausible world building does not require that it matches our own world's history. To me, Tolkien's histories don't even make internal sense in the first place, so adding some extra features that also don't make sense is barely an issue. I might raise an eyebrow if they revealed Middle-Earth was on the back of a turtle, but I would at least be looking forward to seeing the Patrician in action.
The fact there are magical god-Wizards and the earth was flat until it became round and there wasn't a sun but the world was lit by trees, already shows that the history can depart radically from our own. In this version, it is altered more such that there are black dwarves or hobbits or whatever. To me the latter seems a much smaller departure than the former. Since I accept the former as part of the world, I can also accept the latter.
Now if you don't suspend your belief for either, then that is a different and quite reasonable objection. If you're like the aforementioned biologist complaining that dragons that big could never fly with those wings, or that clearly the elven stories about the world having once been flat and lit by trees are clear nonsense, then complaining about phenotypes also makes sense, you're grounding the world in our reality and finding it lacking. But that isn't the objection I mostly seem to see.
SSCReader
1yr ago
That sames...naive. Not in this case necessarily but in general. The accusation can be non credible but the behaviours the investigation uncovers can still be something warranting caution.
If the cops charge someone for murder but it turns out they're only an asshole who makes idle threats. They are STILL an asshole who makes idle threats. You can incorporate that information into how you treat them.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Ahh, well, that is where we differ I think. The books, the 80's movie, the Jackson Trilogies, and the new series have fundamental incompatibilities. Jackson replaces Glorfindel with Arwen. for example. That doesn't stop his trilogy being Lord of the Rings. It isn't the original version. But it also isn't something entirely new.
It's a bastardized cash grab ** -agreed-** pushed out by cultural vandals who hate and disdain everything the original represented. - I disagree here, they may have a different view of things, but reading some interviews with the writers it certainly does not appear that they "hate and disdain" everything. They have different views than they do, of course but that isn't the same thing.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Things have to be internally consistent.
That is fair, but if in the new rebooted universe there are black mermaids then that can be internally consistent. It doesn't need to be internally consistent with the previous version necessarily. Like 616 Nick Fury was white and Ultimates Universe Nick Fury was black. If Ultimates Fury was shown having white parents then if it wasn't explained that would be strange, but he doesn't have to be consistent with 616 Fury's white ancestry.
In our example, it wouldn't be white Jim becoming Asian Jim, it would be a rebooted version of the Office where (in that new universe) Jim was always asian. Internal consistency is internal to the reboot, not to the previous version. Otherwise actors would have to be the same as well.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Sure, like i say he almost certainly is not a sexual predator in that regard.
SSCReader
1yr ago
God didn’t create half men half women.
I am an atheist but that doesn't stop me being able to comment on the logic here. If men and women were created in God's image and God is omniscient and omnipotent then trans men and women are creations of God. They would not exist unless He wanted them to. He could have chosen there to be no trans people or gay people or non-believers etc. The seeds of being trans were contained within the image of God. Now we don't know why that is the case (God works in mysterious ways and so on, maybe created as a test, or to prove a point or some other ineffable reason) but it is the logical outcome of the Christian creation story.
SSCReader
1yr ago
In that case (assuming the existence of God) he also created men who wanted to be women and vice versa, and prople who would support them. Essentially God is mocking Himself, so i am not sure thats a productive line of reasoning.
SSCReader
1yr ago
would you go grab a hacksaw and fire up the gaslights? Or would you think that maybe this person shouldn't be allowed to make that kind of decision for themselves, and they need to be forced to get some regular therapy and evaluation by sane doctors?
That depends, have they started to try and hack off their own limbs with a rusty hacksaw? Then assuming we can't actually treat the mental part of the disorder, then yes surgically removing their limbs so at least they survive the procedure might be the best option. Our options aren't necessarily magical cure, let them chop limbs off, chops limbs off for them, lock them up forever. It might only be, let them chop limbs off, chops limbs off for them, lock them up forever, at which point limb lopping might be best.
For trans people who are suicidal there does not appear to be a pill that will fix it. The treatment is making the outside "match" the mental internal state because we cannot reliably change the mental internal state (and even if we could, are they the same person? or are we just killing that version of them?). I know a person with bipolar disorder who refuses to take medication for this reason, because the person they are on medication is to their natural state not them, it is some stranger who thinks sluggishly and brokenly. I don't know what the correct option is there.
So imperfect, even shoddy transitioning may be the best option actually available.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Well you said he was telling tales of our world now, just SET in the distant past no? If Tolkien was an author today he would be writing stories about the places, peoples and situations of today but mythologized into the past. If he were writing today, I suspect some of the issues around today would have been in his work, just set in his created mythology. That's what an adaption is, it takes a product, re-envisages it as if it were written today (with varying degrees of success). Alternate universe Tolkien writing today where Birmingham has significant Pakistani and Caribbean populations would plausibly have written a very different book.
SSCReader
1yr ago
But does an ad targeted to a diffetent demographic do that, if said demo is already different?.
The people who would buy Bud light after seeing promoted by Mulvaney are presumably onboard with transness already no?
Society is not based on reason in the first place so I don't care what beliefs Bud light are exploiting or if they are true or not. Like i don't care if America truly is the greatest nation on earth in every third beer commercial or whatever. The truth doesn't matter. Its aimed at people who already believe it.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Seems unworkable in a social space. Its trivial for me to tell you Bob stole my wallet and i will certainly gain social status for revealing a thief.
The weight should probably be based on how well you know/trust me and how well you know/trust Bob and whether anyine else has said Bob is a thief or if i lie about people beaing thieves before?
SSCReader
1yr ago
But this was in an email to someone he was asking to back him up. And immediately after he crossed the line by saying he could help a girl out through oral sex.
We have his text messages showing what he himself admits to saying.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Indeed, but if you read what Chris himself has put out there,his behavior is not exactly exemplary. In his own evidence packet it contains things about him having to apologise about making sexual comments and advances inappropriately. Where he himself acknowledges it at the time.
Is he a "sexual predator"? Probably not. He is probably what would have been described as a cad or a rake. Should he have been fired? Probably not. Though maybe telling him to stop shitting where he eats would have been good advice for him to hear.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Father should be able to elect for a "Legal abortion/surrender" where he surrenders all rights and claims to the child, at any point in the child's development.
That doesn't equalize things out though.
Consider that without any legal processes the woman takes most of the physical risks. Whether she chooses to carry the baby to term or have an abortion she will have some form of drug, operation, or birth to go through, then whatever physical changes stem thereof. The man in contrast can walk away. She has skin in the game that will impact her no matter what. He does not.
So if you think the job of laws is to incentivize both parties with skin in the game so as to discourage being irresponsible decision makers, the legal incentives should not match. The woman already has a set of built in incentives. The legal system should not be treating men and women equally, because their situations are not equal. In order to equalize risks men NEED to be penalized more heavily either socially or legally.
I can pump and dump my way across the Midwest leaving a trail of pregnant women behind me. A woman can do the same only every 9 months and only by accepting the physical consequences to herself each time. The social impacts are not equal due to the biological issues not being equal.
SSCReader
1mo ago
Well thats the nature of a coalition. It still doesn't mean that gay marriage led to trans rights. Like if evangelical Christians and neo-liberal free marketeers are in the same Republican coalition it doesn't mean that financial deregulation leads to an abortion ban.
You have to actually be able to draw the line directly. I think thete are fractures bmbetween the LGB and the T that are being somewhat hidden by the fact of perceived right wing antipathy towards both.
I'll point out in the UK, a Conservative government explicitly legalized gay marriage and there is some significant anti trans (from their pov) headwinds. Some of that could be attributed to loss of support as parts of the coalition get what they want explicitly codified in law by a right wing government, rather than getting it through the Supreme Court (and therefore being more tenuous).
If thats the case legalizing gay marriage might be the opposite of a slippery slope. Depending on how and by whom it is done.
SSCReader
1yr ago
You can be wary about what they said themselves. Take a look through the evidence Chris himself put out there. Including apologizing for sexually inappropriate behaviour.
He even says the accusations have some truth with embellishments in his emails asking for support. He probably osn't a sexual predator, but he does seem to have a habit of shitting where he eats and sometimes misjudging situations.
He doesn't seem to be a bad guy, just to be clear. But there is enough smoke he himself admits to that if my 25yo daughter said she had a date with him, i would be wary.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Indeed, which is why I said we don't actually know why God does allow it.
If someone said murder is making a mockery of God, the same critique applies.
That doesn't mean murder is good, just that its hard to describe it as being a mockery of God. It is part of His plan. He knows who will murder and why and when and whom. It is (as is all evil) intrinsically part of His plan for some purpose theologians have struggled with but ultimately do not know.
If you want to say it is sinful, i think that makes sense from within the context of a Christian, no doubt.
God knew at the beginning of Creation how many trans people there would be in 2023. He could have arranged things so that that number was zero. He chose not to. We don't understand why. It could be because He prizes free will so that he chose not to eliminate that potential future quirk of the human pysche. Maybe He is constrained by rules we don't understand. Maybe its Scott's version from Unsong where multiple universe have to be different to maximize good.
But in all cases assuming Christians beliefs about God are accurate it is part of His plan and therefore isn't mocking Him. Unless as stated it is self-mockery. Which is another possibilty, maybe he has a self-deprecating sense of humor! We just don't know.
Who knows?
Just to be clear I would say i am 85% to 90% on Avellone being the victim here.
But people do weird things. Maybe she lied about Dragoncon banning but told the truth about the rest. Maybe Avellone was very forgiving or really wanted to take their make out session to the next level. Maybevshe is confus8ng Dragoncon 2012 for Unicorncon 2013 or a vivid hallucination from when she was high on mushrooms.
My point is not that it is highly likely that she is lying about the situation, but that we cannot know for sure because people do weird, apparently fucked up decision making all the time.
Also to be clear anyone who claims to be sure he is guilty is even more wrong in my opinion. But, I haven't seen anyone saying that here.
Though see my reply to the guy saying it might be 50/50 where i am arguing that he is underestimating the chance of Avellone's innocence.
More options
Context Copy link