[006]
contradictioninterms
Current Version
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
The point that I\'m trying to make is that it\'s not really that common. I\'ve recently played a video game that had a \
to:
The point that I\\\'m trying to make is that it\\\'s not really that common. I\\\'ve recently played a video game that had a \\\"save the woman you love\\\" part in it, and \\\"save an important woman or family member\\\" has been a thing in video games since Mario (are you a bad enough dude to rescue the president?) I haven\\\'t recently read a book or watched a movie with a plot or subplot like \\\"Female X is missing! Hero, get female X back!\\\" ...Well, I have been watching Doctor Who around the time of the Fourth Doctor, but so far they sort of all keep rescuing each other.
[Oh, actually, I wasn\\\'t thinking. There are a couple anime that I\\\'m watching that have become like this lately, both with love as motivation.]
...Also, if I understand your ideas correctly, if a man were to save the woman he loves, that would be acting on the basis of emotion rather than from the necessity of circumstances, and the audience would lose their empathy with him and would not care whether he lived or died.
I really just... disagree with you.
> Actor/Observer bias. The audience assumes the male character is motivated the way they are motivated, by circumstances. Thus there is no \\\'personality\\\' to get in the way with identifying with his actions.
No, this makes no sense. Say the male character feels about dying the way I feel about dying, ie. he is against it. So he tries to not die. In other words, he is motivated by circumstances, the same way that the audience supposedly sees themselves, and the way he would act probably wouldn\\\'t be too different from the way the audience would act.
How on Earth do you get to \\\"he has no personality\\\" with just a \\\"thus\\\"??
> > Is a male character always expendable? Or just when the audience can\\\'t identify with them?
> What do you think?
Well, the second one is different from what you usually say, but it makes more sense than usual. I honestly don\\\'t know which one you actually believe.
Or are you asking for my personal opinion about MenAreTheExpendableGender? I think men are at the standard level of expendability and it\\\'s more like WomenAreThePreciousGender (because of (supposed) innocence and non-combatant status). Killing people off is great in fiction, you get the delicious schadenfreude, but you kind of feel especially bad killing woman and children. That\\\'s my take.
If a man has a responsibility to die to protect his wife and child, a woman also has a responsibility to die to protect her child. Are women TheExpendableGender in that case? Is a woman\\\'s passive value being annihilated by her inability not to act? No, it\\\'s just that a child\\\'s life is \\\'\\\'even more\\\'\\\' innocent and precious. (I\\\'m not seriously saying this \\\"even more\\\" so please take it with a grain of salt etc.)
[Oh, actually, I wasn\\\'t thinking. There are a couple anime that I\\\'m watching that have become like this lately, both with love as motivation.]
...Also, if I understand your ideas correctly, if a man were to save the woman he loves, that would be acting on the basis of emotion rather than from the necessity of circumstances, and the audience would lose their empathy with him and would not care whether he lived or died.
I really just... disagree with you.
> Actor/Observer bias. The audience assumes the male character is motivated the way they are motivated, by circumstances. Thus there is no \\\'personality\\\' to get in the way with identifying with his actions.
No, this makes no sense. Say the male character feels about dying the way I feel about dying, ie. he is against it. So he tries to not die. In other words, he is motivated by circumstances, the same way that the audience supposedly sees themselves, and the way he would act probably wouldn\\\'t be too different from the way the audience would act.
How on Earth do you get to \\\"he has no personality\\\" with just a \\\"thus\\\"??
> > Is a male character always expendable? Or just when the audience can\\\'t identify with them?
> What do you think?
Well, the second one is different from what you usually say, but it makes more sense than usual. I honestly don\\\'t know which one you actually believe.
Or are you asking for my personal opinion about MenAreTheExpendableGender? I think men are at the standard level of expendability and it\\\'s more like WomenAreThePreciousGender (because of (supposed) innocence and non-combatant status). Killing people off is great in fiction, you get the delicious schadenfreude, but you kind of feel especially bad killing woman and children. That\\\'s my take.
If a man has a responsibility to die to protect his wife and child, a woman also has a responsibility to die to protect her child. Are women TheExpendableGender in that case? Is a woman\\\'s passive value being annihilated by her inability not to act? No, it\\\'s just that a child\\\'s life is \\\'\\\'even more\\\'\\\' innocent and precious. (I\\\'m not seriously saying this \\\"even more\\\" so please take it with a grain of salt etc.)
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
The point that I\'m trying to make is that it\'s not really that common. I\'ve recently played a video game that had a \
to:
The point that I\\\'m trying to make is that it\\\'s not really that common. I\\\'ve recently played a video game that had a \\\"save the woman you love\\\" part in it, and \\\"save an important woman or family member\\\" has been a thing in video games since Mario (are you a bad enough dude to rescue the president?) I haven\\\'t recently read a book or watched a movie with a plot or subplot like \\\"Female X is missing! Hero, get female X back!\\\" ...Well, I have been watching Doctor Who around the time of the Fourth Doctor, but so far they sort of all keep rescuing each other.
[Oh, actually, I wasn\\\'t thinking. There are a couple anime that I\\\'m watching that have become like this lately, both with love as motivation.]
...Also, if I understand your ideas correctly, if a man were to save the woman he loves, that would be acting on the basis of emotion rather than from the necessity of circumstances, and the audience would lose their empathy with him and would not care whether he lived or died.
I really just... disagree with you.
> Actor/Observer bias. The audience assumes the male character is motivated the way they are motivated, by circumstances. Thus there is no \\\'personality\\\' to get in the way with identifying with his actions.
No, this makes no sense. Say the male character feels about dying the way I feel about dying, ie. he is against it. So he tries to not die. In other words, he is motivated by circumstances, the same way that the audience supposedly sees themselves, and the way he would act probably wouldn\\\'t be too different from the way the audience would act.
How on Earth do you get to \\\"he has no personality\\\" with just a \\\"thus\\\"??
> > Is a male character always expendable? Or just when the audience can\\\'t identify with them?
> What do you think?
Well, the second one is different from what you usually say, but it makes more sense than usual. I honestly don\\\'t know which one you actually believe.
Or are you asking for my personal opinion about MenAreTheExpendableGender? I think men are at the standard level of expendability and it\\\'s more like WomenAreThePreciousGender (because of (supposed) innocence and non-combatant status). Killing people off is great in fiction, you get the delicious schadenfreude, but you kind of feel especially bad killing woman and children. That\\\'s my take.
If a man has a responsibility to die to protect his wife and child, a woman also has a responsibility to die to protect her child. Are women TheExpendableGender in that case? Is a woman\\\'s passive value being annihilated by her inability not to act? No, it\\\'s just that a child\\\'s life is \\\'\\\'even more\\\'\\\' innocent and precious. (I\\\'m not seriously saying this so please take it with a grain of salt etc.)
[Oh, actually, I wasn\\\'t thinking. There are a couple anime that I\\\'m watching that have become like this lately, both with love as motivation.]
...Also, if I understand your ideas correctly, if a man were to save the woman he loves, that would be acting on the basis of emotion rather than from the necessity of circumstances, and the audience would lose their empathy with him and would not care whether he lived or died.
I really just... disagree with you.
> Actor/Observer bias. The audience assumes the male character is motivated the way they are motivated, by circumstances. Thus there is no \\\'personality\\\' to get in the way with identifying with his actions.
No, this makes no sense. Say the male character feels about dying the way I feel about dying, ie. he is against it. So he tries to not die. In other words, he is motivated by circumstances, the same way that the audience supposedly sees themselves, and the way he would act probably wouldn\\\'t be too different from the way the audience would act.
How on Earth do you get to \\\"he has no personality\\\" with just a \\\"thus\\\"??
> > Is a male character always expendable? Or just when the audience can\\\'t identify with them?
> What do you think?
Well, the second one is different from what you usually say, but it makes more sense than usual. I honestly don\\\'t know which one you actually believe.
Or are you asking for my personal opinion about MenAreTheExpendableGender? I think men are at the standard level of expendability and it\\\'s more like WomenAreThePreciousGender (because of (supposed) innocence and non-combatant status). Killing people off is great in fiction, you get the delicious schadenfreude, but you kind of feel especially bad killing woman and children. That\\\'s my take.
If a man has a responsibility to die to protect his wife and child, a woman also has a responsibility to die to protect her child. Are women TheExpendableGender in that case? Is a woman\\\'s passive value being annihilated by her inability not to act? No, it\\\'s just that a child\\\'s life is \\\'\\\'even more\\\'\\\' innocent and precious. (I\\\'m not seriously saying this so please take it with a grain of salt etc.)
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
The point that I\'m trying to make is that it\'s not really that common. I\'ve recently played a video game that had a \
to:
The point that I\\\'m trying to make is that it\\\'s not really that common. I\\\'ve recently played a video game that had a \\\"save the woman you love\\\" part in it, and \\\"save an important woman or family member\\\" has been a thing in video games since Mario (are you a bad enough dude to rescue the president?) I haven\\\'t recently read a book or watched a movie with a plot or subplot like \\\"Female X is missing! Hero, get female X back!\\\" ...Well, I have been watching Doctor Who around the time of the Fourth Doctor, but so far they sort of all keep rescuing each other.
[Oh, actually, I wasn\\\'t thinking. There are a couple anime that I\\\'m watching that have become like this lately, both with love as motivation.]
...Also, if I understand your ideas correctly, if a man were to save the woman he loves, that would be acting on the basis of emotion rather than from the necessity of circumstances, and the audience would lose their empathy with him and would not care whether he lived or died.
I really just... disagree with you.
> Actor/Observer bias. The audience assumes the male character is motivated the way they are motivated, by circumstances. Thus there is no \\\'personality\\\' to get in the way with identifying with his actions.
No, this makes no sense. Say the male character feels about dying the way I feel about dying, ie. he is against it. So he tries to not die. In other words, he is motivated by circumstances, the same way that the audience supposedly sees themselves, and the way he would act probably wouldn\\\'t be too different from the way the audience would act.
How on Earth do you get to \\\"he has no personality\\\" with just a \\\"thus\\\"??
> > Is a male character always expendable? Or just when the audience can\\\'t identify with them?
> What do you think?
Well, the second one is different from what you usually say, but it makes more sense than usual. I honestly don\\\'t know which one you actually believe.
Or are you asking for my personal opinion about MenAreTheExpendableGender? I think men are at the standard level of expendability and it\\\'s more like WomenAreThePreciousGender (because of (supposed) innocence and non-combatant status). Killing people off is great in fiction, you get the delicious schadenfreude, but you kind of feel especially bad killing woman and children. That\\\'s my take.
If a man has a responsibility to die to protect his wife and child, a woman also has a responsibility to die to protect her child. Are women TheExpendableGender in that case? Is a woman\\\'s passive value being annihilated by her inability not to act? No, it\\\'s just that a child\\\'s life is \\\'\\\'even more\\\'\\\' innocent and precious.
[Oh, actually, I wasn\\\'t thinking. There are a couple anime that I\\\'m watching that have become like this lately, both with love as motivation.]
...Also, if I understand your ideas correctly, if a man were to save the woman he loves, that would be acting on the basis of emotion rather than from the necessity of circumstances, and the audience would lose their empathy with him and would not care whether he lived or died.
I really just... disagree with you.
> Actor/Observer bias. The audience assumes the male character is motivated the way they are motivated, by circumstances. Thus there is no \\\'personality\\\' to get in the way with identifying with his actions.
No, this makes no sense. Say the male character feels about dying the way I feel about dying, ie. he is against it. So he tries to not die. In other words, he is motivated by circumstances, the same way that the audience supposedly sees themselves, and the way he would act probably wouldn\\\'t be too different from the way the audience would act.
How on Earth do you get to \\\"he has no personality\\\" with just a \\\"thus\\\"??
> > Is a male character always expendable? Or just when the audience can\\\'t identify with them?
> What do you think?
Well, the second one is different from what you usually say, but it makes more sense than usual. I honestly don\\\'t know which one you actually believe.
Or are you asking for my personal opinion about MenAreTheExpendableGender? I think men are at the standard level of expendability and it\\\'s more like WomenAreThePreciousGender (because of (supposed) innocence and non-combatant status). Killing people off is great in fiction, you get the delicious schadenfreude, but you kind of feel especially bad killing woman and children. That\\\'s my take.
If a man has a responsibility to die to protect his wife and child, a woman also has a responsibility to die to protect her child. Are women TheExpendableGender in that case? Is a woman\\\'s passive value being annihilated by her inability not to act? No, it\\\'s just that a child\\\'s life is \\\'\\\'even more\\\'\\\' innocent and precious.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
The point that I\'m trying to make is that it\'s not really that common. I\'ve recently played a video game that had a \
to:
The point that I\\\'m trying to make is that it\\\'s not really that common. I\\\'ve recently played a video game that had a \\\"save the woman you love\\\" part in it, and \\\"save an important woman or family member\\\" has been a thing in video games since Mario (are you a bad enough dude to rescue the president?) I haven\\\'t recently read a book or watched a movie with a plot or subplot like \\\"Female X is missing! Hero, get female X back!\\\" ...Well, I have been watching Doctor Who around the time of the Fourth Doctor, but so far they sort of all keep rescuing each other.
...Also, if I understand your ideas correctly, if a man were to save the woman he loves, that would be acting on the basis of emotion rather than from the necessity of circumstances, and the audience would lose their empathy with him and would not care whether he lived or died.
I really just... disagree with you.
> Actor/Observer bias. The audience assumes the male character is motivated the way they are motivated, by circumstances. Thus there is no \\\'personality\\\' to get in the way with identifying with his actions.
No, this makes no sense. Say the male character feels about dying the way I feel about dying, ie. he is against it. So he tries to not die. In other words, he is motivated by circumstances, the same way that the audience supposedly sees themselves, and the way he would act probably wouldn\\\'t be too different from the way the audience would act.
How on Earth do you get to \\\"he has no personality\\\" with just a \\\"thus\\\"??
> > Is a male character always expendable? Or just when the audience can\\\'t identify with them?
> What do you think?
Well, the second one is different from what you usually say, but it makes more sense than usual. I honestly don\\\'t know which one you actually believe.
Or are you asking for my personal opinion about MenAreTheExpendableGender? I think men are at the standard level of expendability and it\\\'s more like WomenAreThePreciousGender (because of (supposed) innocence and non-combatant status). Killing people off is great in fiction, you get the delicious schadenfreude, but you kind of feel especially bad killing woman and children. That\\\'s my take.
If a man has a responsibility to die to protect his wife and child, a woman also has a responsibility to die to protect her child. Are women TheExpendableGender in that case? Is a woman\\\'s passive value being annihilated by her inability not to act? No, it\\\'s just that a child\\\'s life is \\\'\\\'even more\\\'\\\' innocent and precious.
...Also, if I understand your ideas correctly, if a man were to save the woman he loves, that would be acting on the basis of emotion rather than from the necessity of circumstances, and the audience would lose their empathy with him and would not care whether he lived or died.
I really just... disagree with you.
> Actor/Observer bias. The audience assumes the male character is motivated the way they are motivated, by circumstances. Thus there is no \\\'personality\\\' to get in the way with identifying with his actions.
No, this makes no sense. Say the male character feels about dying the way I feel about dying, ie. he is against it. So he tries to not die. In other words, he is motivated by circumstances, the same way that the audience supposedly sees themselves, and the way he would act probably wouldn\\\'t be too different from the way the audience would act.
How on Earth do you get to \\\"he has no personality\\\" with just a \\\"thus\\\"??
> > Is a male character always expendable? Or just when the audience can\\\'t identify with them?
> What do you think?
Well, the second one is different from what you usually say, but it makes more sense than usual. I honestly don\\\'t know which one you actually believe.
Or are you asking for my personal opinion about MenAreTheExpendableGender? I think men are at the standard level of expendability and it\\\'s more like WomenAreThePreciousGender (because of (supposed) innocence and non-combatant status). Killing people off is great in fiction, you get the delicious schadenfreude, but you kind of feel especially bad killing woman and children. That\\\'s my take.
If a man has a responsibility to die to protect his wife and child, a woman also has a responsibility to die to protect her child. Are women TheExpendableGender in that case? Is a woman\\\'s passive value being annihilated by her inability not to act? No, it\\\'s just that a child\\\'s life is \\\'\\\'even more\\\'\\\' innocent and precious.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
The point that I\'m trying to make is that it\'s not really that common. I\'ve recently played a video game that had a \
to:
The point that I\\\'m trying to make is that it\\\'s not really that common. I\\\'ve recently played a video game that had a \\\"save the woman you love\\\" part in it, and \\\"save an important woman or family member\\\" has been a thing in video games since Mario (are you a bad enough dude to rescue the president?) I haven\\\'t recently read a book or watched a movie with a plot or subplot like \\\"Female X is missing! Hero, get female X back!\\\" ...Well, I have been watching Doctor Who around the time of the Fourth Doctor, but so far they sort of all keep rescuing each other.
...Also, if I understand your ideas correctly, if a man were to save the woman he loves, that would be acting on the basis of emotion rather than from the necessity of circumstances, and the audience would lose their empathy with him and would not care whether he lived or died.
I really just... disagree with you.
> Actor/Observer bias. The audience assumes the male character is motivated the way they are motivated, by circumstances. Thus there is no \\\'personality\\\' to get in the way with identifying with his actions.
No, this makes no sense. Say the male character feels about dying the way I feel about dying, ie. he is against it. So he tries to not die. In other words, he is motivated by circumstances, the same way that the audience supposedly sees themselves, and the way he would act probably wouldn\\\'t be too different from the way the audience would act.
How on Earth do you get to \\\"he has no personality\\\" with just a \\\"thus\\\"??
> > Is a male character always expendable? Or just when the audience can\\\'t identify with them?
> What do you think?
Well, the second one is different from what you usually say, but it makes more sense than usual. I honestly don\\\'t know which one you actually believe.
Or are you asking for my personal opinion about MenAreTheExpendableGender? I think men are at the standard level of expendability and it\\\'s more like WomenAreThePreciousGender (because of innocence and non-combatant status). Killing people off is great in fiction, you get the delicious schadenfreude, but you kind of feel especially bad killing woman and children. That\\\'s my take.
If a man has a responsibility to die to protect his wife and child, a woman also has a responsibility to die to protect her child. Are women TheExpendableGender in that case? Is a woman\\\'s passive value being annihilated by her inability not to act? No, it\\\'s just that a child\\\'s life is \\\'\\\'even more\\\'\\\' innocent and precious.
...Also, if I understand your ideas correctly, if a man were to save the woman he loves, that would be acting on the basis of emotion rather than from the necessity of circumstances, and the audience would lose their empathy with him and would not care whether he lived or died.
I really just... disagree with you.
> Actor/Observer bias. The audience assumes the male character is motivated the way they are motivated, by circumstances. Thus there is no \\\'personality\\\' to get in the way with identifying with his actions.
No, this makes no sense. Say the male character feels about dying the way I feel about dying, ie. he is against it. So he tries to not die. In other words, he is motivated by circumstances, the same way that the audience supposedly sees themselves, and the way he would act probably wouldn\\\'t be too different from the way the audience would act.
How on Earth do you get to \\\"he has no personality\\\" with just a \\\"thus\\\"??
> > Is a male character always expendable? Or just when the audience can\\\'t identify with them?
> What do you think?
Well, the second one is different from what you usually say, but it makes more sense than usual. I honestly don\\\'t know which one you actually believe.
Or are you asking for my personal opinion about MenAreTheExpendableGender? I think men are at the standard level of expendability and it\\\'s more like WomenAreThePreciousGender (because of innocence and non-combatant status). Killing people off is great in fiction, you get the delicious schadenfreude, but you kind of feel especially bad killing woman and children. That\\\'s my take.
If a man has a responsibility to die to protect his wife and child, a woman also has a responsibility to die to protect her child. Are women TheExpendableGender in that case? Is a woman\\\'s passive value being annihilated by her inability not to act? No, it\\\'s just that a child\\\'s life is \\\'\\\'even more\\\'\\\' innocent and precious.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
The point that I\'m trying to make is that it\'s not really that common. I\'ve recently played a video game that had a \
to:
The point that I\\\'m trying to make is that it\\\'s not really that common. I\\\'ve recently played a video game that had a \\\"save the woman you love\\\" part in it, and \\\"save an important woman or family member\\\" has been a thing in video games since Mario (are you a bad enough dude to rescue the president?) I haven\\\'t recently read a book or watched a movie with a plot or subplot like \\\"Female X is missing! Hero, get female X back!\\\" ...Well, I have been watching Doctor Who around the time of the Fourth Doctor, but so far they sort of all keep rescuing each other.
> Actor/Observer bias. The audience assumes the male character is motivated the way they are motivated, by circumstances. Thus there is no \\\'personality\\\' to get in the way with identifying with his actions.
No, this makes no sense. Say the male character feels about dying the way I feel about dying, ie. he is against it. So he tries to not die. In other words, he is motivated by circumstances, the same way that the audience supposedly sees themselves, and the way he would act probably wouldn\\\'t be too different from the way the audience would act.
How on Earth do you get to \\\"he has no personality\\\" with just a \\\"thus\\\"??
> > Is a male character always expendable? Or just when the audience can\\\'t identify with them?
> What do you think?
Well, the second one is different from what you usually say, but it makes more sense than usual. I honestly don\\\'t know which one you actually believe.
Or are you asking for my personal opinion about MenAreTheExpendableGender? I think men are at the standard level of expendability and it\\\'s more like WomenAreThePreciousGender (because of innocence and non-combatant status). Killing people off is great in fiction, you get the delicious schadenfreude, but you kind of feel especially bad killing woman and children. That\\\'s my take.
If a man has a responsibility to die to protect his wife and child, a woman also has a responsibility to die to protect her child. Are women TheExpendableGender in that case? Is a woman\\\'s passive value being annihilated by her inability not to act? No, it\\\'s just that a child\\\'s life is \\\'\\\'even more\\\'\\\' innocent and precious.
> Actor/Observer bias. The audience assumes the male character is motivated the way they are motivated, by circumstances. Thus there is no \\\'personality\\\' to get in the way with identifying with his actions.
No, this makes no sense. Say the male character feels about dying the way I feel about dying, ie. he is against it. So he tries to not die. In other words, he is motivated by circumstances, the same way that the audience supposedly sees themselves, and the way he would act probably wouldn\\\'t be too different from the way the audience would act.
How on Earth do you get to \\\"he has no personality\\\" with just a \\\"thus\\\"??
> > Is a male character always expendable? Or just when the audience can\\\'t identify with them?
> What do you think?
Well, the second one is different from what you usually say, but it makes more sense than usual. I honestly don\\\'t know which one you actually believe.
Or are you asking for my personal opinion about MenAreTheExpendableGender? I think men are at the standard level of expendability and it\\\'s more like WomenAreThePreciousGender (because of innocence and non-combatant status). Killing people off is great in fiction, you get the delicious schadenfreude, but you kind of feel especially bad killing woman and children. That\\\'s my take.
If a man has a responsibility to die to protect his wife and child, a woman also has a responsibility to die to protect her child. Are women TheExpendableGender in that case? Is a woman\\\'s passive value being annihilated by her inability not to act? No, it\\\'s just that a child\\\'s life is \\\'\\\'even more\\\'\\\' innocent and precious.
