Going to address this post, by @blue-analytic, and then this furtherance of it by @gweatherwax, because it is pertinent to me. Namely, they invoke a debate that I supposedly did not reply to with chidorinnn. Which actually, began with this post, dealing with things that are wrong with the ending not related to shipping, found here. The issue is, my reply was this. I also discovered, in this process, that @blue-analytic has been pretending to be two people, or at least seems as much.
This is going to be VERY long, for the record, so I’ll do a favor and hide it away.
To which she later replied, something that, for one reason or another, slipped my notice. It has been trotted out as me being unable to reply, when I reality, I simply never noticed it for one reason or the other. My activity feed is busy, this was posted two months ago, whatever. I actually intend to reply to it now, simply because it was brought to my attention.
Simply put, though, this does not constitute a ‘successful debate,’ namely because it never was a debate. There was no debate, so how can this be called successful?
Furthermore, lets actually get into the meat of what blue-analytic says, seeing as I cannot actually find the post they are referring to, despite knowing I replied to it. I did not, at least, know it until I just googled a section of that debate, finding it not on @blue-analytic’s page, but rather, on shadowwhowalks. blue-analytic claims it was in THEIR last debate with me, which implies a likely scenario that blue-analytic IS shadowwhowalks, yet somehow spoke of shadowwhowalks as if they were someone else. See this post.
They posted this:
To begin with, I’ll describe how indoctrination (ie. your ‘arguments’) work:
The first step is to establish a demeanor; acting high and mighty and “above it all”. Act is if you are some sort of college professor with a high-class British accent talking in an echo-y lecture hall. This will discourage people who couldn’t see right through you from challenging your statements. Demean their education, and mockingly and haughty tell any opposition something along the lines of: “All your challenges are old and tired, and you have no rational arguments for your position” without providing any rebuttal, support for your statement, or indeed listening to what your opponent has to say, and degrade any opposing person’s ability to think. Some people might get intimidated or feel worshipful, this combined with you making fun of the opposing group at every turn can act as an attempt to shrink opposition. The second step is to group all the opposition and skeptics together no matter what, and regardless of the reason for their skepticism of your claims. Then make fun of the least credible of the opposition so the whole group would get associated with that buffon. Nobody wanting to be that guy/gal, thus people who couldn’t see through you might feel pressured to turncoat. The third step is to attempt to convince people into believing something contradictory and thus impossible (Naruto is a scumbag all along, Naruto being OOC is part of his character, the Uchiha massacre is acceptable, Kishi knows how to write female characters, romance is well-developed, B & S are not neglected, etc.). Fool them into thinking an event that didn’t take place happened. Once they believe one impossible thing, they’ll more easily believe the next one. You then lead them through a sequence of impossible events of your choosing. Finally, switching the goal post is key. Make the audience believe you are going to demonstrate something unbelievable and difficult. Once they get the implication, describe a far easier event, but convince them that your new task is equally as, if not more so, difficult than the one you were originally supposed to show or explain.
Which I replied to, with this:
One. For one, fuck the British accent. Give me a South African one over it any day. However, interesting argument that I’m challenging your education and the like by pointing out your challenges are old and tired, and you have no rational arguments for your position. Which is true. Your argument literally attempted to portray Boruto as a neglected child or that Hinata was forcing Himawari to mourn. These are just the barest examples of your lack of rational arguments. I DID provide a rebuttal. I provided them SEVERAL TIMES OVER, and you often simply restated your argument or ignored those responses. I’m not degrading your ability to think, I’m calling into the fact that you have not displayed an ability to form a logical argument.
Two. Funny, because I have mostly attempted to AVOID this. I generally state anti-’s in as much as I apply the group that is anti-ending tends nearly universally to be also anti-NaruHina and anti-SasuSaku. However, I separate out people who ship things from anti’s, and even will separate out folks who ARE anti for different things. The only reason I’d group them is because they have demonstrated either grouping themselves OR because their arguments are such that they can be grouped. Given I don’t ‘make fun of’ anyone, let alone the ‘least credible’ of an opposition, this doesn’t even APPLY to me.
Three. Funny, because I never do this either. Lets go through your examples? Naruto was never a scumbag, not even in the end. Naruto never acts OOC in the ending or the Last. The Uchiha massacre is not ‘acceptable,’ but blaming Konoha for it is inaccurate, because ultimately it was Itachi who did it, and Danzo who ordered it, and also ignoring that the Uchiha were not just some oppressed minority but rather had their own part in why they didn’t mesh with Konoha and indeed were attempting violent overthrow is also bad. Most of all, though, is that it was Itachi (and Obito) who actually committed the massacre, and they killed everyone, not just adults, or anything. They just murdered all of their own clansmen. THEY did. Not the Elders, not the Third, not even Danzo. They did. Itachi is not a hero, he’s literally a murderous asshole. He recognized himself he was not a hero and did wrong, and said as much to Sasuke. Kishi’s ability to write female character is mixed, but I don’t remember ever arguing it wasn’t. NaruHina as a relationship IS well-developed, and you pretending its not won’t make it not. Boruto and Sarada are NOT neglected, and you pretending they ARE won’t make it so. Thus, basically, the stream here is you wanting to make declarative statements not born out in the manga to be true, and then claim advocating for these things is ‘indoctrination’ or ‘impossible.’
Four. Never done this in actual debate, or really at all, so not really sure what your point is.
I will note that, at the time, this was pre-Gaiden, and the neglect comment was therefor, unproven. Given that Boruto was not, and is not, a neglected child, the argument that Sarada was was faulty, at the time. At the time of 700, there simply was no evidence about what sort of father Sasuke was. She still is not neglected, of course, by her mother, though we can get quite reasonably upset over Sasuke’s behavior.
Further material from the other things they accuse me of were replied to, and refuted here, which also marks my exit from this debate out of sheer incredulity. I was frustrated by the sheer density of the person in question, IE: shadowwhowalks/@blue-analytic.
Which handles that.
Now, though, onto the real gem, @gweatherwax’s lovely contribution.
JFC. All this AND he is OPENLY a defender of authoritarian, neo-fascist dictatorial regimes. He OPENLY defends oligarchy, authoritarianism and militarism as examples of a perfect society, while of course being from the ONE country in the world that hasn’t ever gone through that - yes, he behaves as if he were a Tea-Party radical right-wing extremist.
I am, apparently, now a supporter of authoritarian, neo-fascist dictatorial regimes. Which is funny, and actually why I posted, recently, on why none of the political systems we know anything of detail about in Naruto function as actually any of those buzzwords. I also never once held up anything in the Naruto universe as an example of a perfect society.
We need to address something, though. First off, Konoha IS a military. It is essentially a city-state whose primary economy is paramilitary services. I never held this up as an perfect or even ideal society. I simply recognized it for what it is, mainly because I do not cleave to the idea that there is one pure, superior form of government, though I have my views and preferences. However, I tend to keep them to myself and do not engage in hating on fictional universes for representing historical realities of differing political institutions constituted by imperfect mankind existing and will continue to exist. The very fact that humans have not yet and likely never will achieve anything close to an ideal government or society plays into this: I do not expect fiction to present truly unrealistic concepts. Naruto having a perfect society would be far more breaking of suspension of disbelief than fire-breathing or teleportation, to me.
However, to loop back, the issue is the government of Konoha, as discussed here, is not fascist or neo-fascist. It’s not even authoritarian, really. It can loosely be described as dictatorial in as much as any military organization can be. The commander of a military base is a dictator of that base, to a degree. However, there is one thing greatly ignored, and one I’ve brought up several times.
Not only is the political system of Konoha inherently based around a paramilitary organization, it is also based around about 200 years, at most, of development out of literally feudal existence. Vast quantities of the world still, likely, exist in feudal or semi-feudal life. Because Naruto is not set in the modern world. It’s set in a period akin to feudal Japan, with anachronistic technology mixed in. I do not fault it for this fact, in the same way I do not fault any other manga set during a past history period for not establishing utopia.
And now, onto another note, I find it interesting that gweatherwax seems annoyed when folks talk about her country politics, yet seems entirely ok talking about mine, when clearly knowing next to nothing about it. If she did, several things would become apparently. Namely, that accusing me of supporting “authoritarian, neo-fascist dictatorial regimes” and then accusing me of being a “Tea-Party radical right-wing extremist” is fundamentally a non sequiter, on several levels.
First off, the right-wing in the United States are not fascist or authoritarian, because the right-wing in the united states is generally a mix of traditional and neo-conservatives with a tendency towards laissez faire economic policies, things fascism was directly opposed to. Here is the thing. In the United States, the entire country was FOUNDED on principles, at the time, considered liberal. Which is why in other countries, liberals are more like what we’d called the Republican party. Thus conservatives, in the United States, are conserving principles that, in Europe, were considered liberal. This also sometimes mixes with SOCIAL conservatism, which is not always actually meshed with POLITICAL conservatism, though oddly, for interesting historical reasons, it HAS in the last few decades, and literally it is only a product of the last few decades.
Regardless, ring-wing in the United States is, theoretically, a supporter of small and decentralized government with little power, which is antithetical to fascism. Of course, in practice we have politicians of all shades trying to increase government power, but that’s a discussion for another time. Idealistically, though, right-wing in the US means small government. It is inherently anti-fascist by its nature.
Furthermore, Tea Party depends on if we mean actual Tea Party or the caricature of the Tea Party we swing around. Regardless, grouping radical right wing extremist and Tea Party into one response (even if it doesn’t quite fit) would imply something far different than neo-fascist, it would imply anarcho-capitalist. IE: no government at all. That is the extreme right-wing in the United States, and what an extreme right wing ‘Tea Partier’ would be. In practice, Tea Partiers are just conservatives with libertarian economic and the like views, and more specifically tend to be more small government, less taxes focused that other folks tacked things onto.
In short, gweatherwax should stop talking about politics in countries she knows nothing about. Actually, she should stop talking about politics in general, as she has displayed a lack of competency in describing various political systems.
Oh, and he’s also a very vocal homophobe and misogynist. He’ll use slut-shaming against women who dare to embrace their sexuality - including and especially the hetero ones because of course any woman who isn’t afraid of sex is dangerous to him - and he’ll defend both heteronormativity and the maintenance of cultural ghettos to hide every and all stories that dare to depict diversity as something that simply exists and not as fetishes for straight people until he’s blue in the face.
Now, I’m truly shocked. I am, apparently a vocal homophobe AND a misogynist. Lets look at these definitions.
Misogynist would be one predicated towards misogyny. Which would be, according to Merrim-Webster, “a hatred of women.” Dictionary.com’s larger definition is “a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.”
Homophobia would be, again, Merrim-Webster, “irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.”
Now then, if I am vocally both of these things, I think it will not be hard to produce any posts I’ve made that support these claims. I’m also curious where I at all engaged in slut-shaming. Honestly, I have no idea WHERE this came from.
It’s odd that I am because called a misogynist by a person who enthusiastically uses sexually demeaning names for heterosexual female characters that get in the way of their ship, accusing them of being ‘breeding mares’ and worse. It’s also odd that I am the one being accuse of folks who embrace sexuality when the person doing so has a repeated habit of accusing folks who like the canon ships of being only in it for sex and only thinking about ‘riding x characters’ D’ for females and comparable things for males, paraphrased only very slightly.
I’m curious how a woman who is not afraid of sex is dangerous to me, or why this is even a thing. I’m LEGITIMATELY curious where this accusation comes from. It doesn’t even make sense.
To say nothing of supposed defense of heteronormativity, which is funny, because I’ve actually argued with this. The point of opposing heteronormativity is the idea that things that aren’t heterosexual are equal and valid as it. IE: that they are all normal. This is an argument I HAVE MADE before. I’m curious where this accusation comes from, just like the one about cultural ghettos and apparently opposing diversity.
That she’d bring up fetishes is interesting, namely because she engages in behavior that can be called ‘being a fujoshi.’ She outright has admitted that she enjoys watching two young, hot male characters engage in sexual acts as a method of sexual gratification for her. That is, inherently, treating two males engaging in sexual acts in a fetishized manner. This is literally akin to the often decried male who enjoys watching lesbian porn because it’s ‘hot.’ All we’ve done is reverse things: female who enjoys watching yaoi because it’s ‘hot.’
I am not denying they may legitimately like their ships because of dynamics, or even because of ‘representation,’ even if I think that argument is faulty, but when you’ve also admitted you like it because you derive sexual gratification from it, you are fetishizing it. You are literally doing what you accuse and shame other people for supposedly doing.
So, here, a minor detour, into a slight difference. And not going to hold myself above or superior to folks because of this, but I suspect I’m not alone: I do not ship NaruHina for sexual gratification in any way. I don’t derive it. Even smut or NSFW art about it simply does not have that motivation. I do not use it as ‘fap material,’ because it doesn’t work. I enjoy passion, I enjoy the emotional aspects to it, but I do not derive sexual gratification from it. This is why the accusations of it amuse me more than anything.
Further, when a person has admitted they very much DO derive sexual gratification from their ship, their shaming of others for it seems hypocritical.
I’ll also close that, once again, we have folks who have blocked me, yet still feel entirely fine with talking about me. Cowardice.
