|
12 months ago ::
Jun 13, 2012 - 2:04PM
#381
|
|
|
Taking out the offensive material does not exclude anyone other than those who demand that the product include that offensive material...and those are just the people who*should*be excluded from the hobby. And arguing that D&D art has, historically, been better than, say, Fatal or deviantart is not much of a defense. A cupcake is not as unhealthy as a cup of pure lard...but there's no way to argue that this makes either one "healthy."
To extend your analogy a little. Cupcakes sell in massive amounts. "Healthy" feeds stay unbought on the shelves.
That's not actually terribly accurate. Healthy food sells extremely well, especially factoring in it's generally higher cost, shorter storage life and lesser convenience factor.
I would say the exact opposite of accurate, health food easily outsells cupcakes, I present to you the tomato, whole wheat flour and plain milk. All three healthy and staples of the world's diet, selling far more than any cupcake, I don't even have to look that up, to know it.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 13, 2012 - 2:06PM
#382
|
Date Joined:
Sep 29, 2008
|
I seriously can't take seriously (lol) the idea that changing what pronouns we use will change anything else, ever. That's just not how language works.
Think of it like this. The idea that you can fool yourself or other people into believing something by using a word that has two different meanings first in one meaning and then in another similiar but crucially different meaning is uncontroversial, I think. So somebody can fool themselves into believing that statements about men only actually apply to humans in general, or that statements about humans in general really apply to men only, by equivocating on the word 'he'. I have seen instances where a writer quite clearly did this to himself.
Also, when people come across sentences using words that have two different but similar meanings they tend to unconsciously favour interpretations that keep both meanings in play for as long as they can. The result is that using 'he', and also 'man' for humanity, results in people unconsciously interpreting that language as saying that adult males are normal human beings while women (and children) are special cases.
Hoard: may earn you gp; Horde: may earn you xp.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 13, 2012 - 2:19PM
#383
|
|
|
Just so this topic can finally be put to bed, with a stake through its heart:
All the people arguing that sexist imagery is no problem, that it doesn't effect you, that it's perfectly ok because so much of society condones it: you're wrong. Conclusively. Mathematically. Research study after research study has demonstrated that sexist imagery does, unequivocally, alter gender perceptions:
Neurological studies demonstrate that sexist images objectifying women (and men) produce hostile, objectifying response in linguistic centers of the brain: www.princeton.edu/~mcikara/Cikara2011JOC...
Statistical linguistics study demonstrating how gendered pronoun ("he") produces gendered response in audience: www.springerlink.com/content/t1v31844133...
Psychological study demonstratin effect on body image of female audience subjected to sexualized/idealized stereotypical female images: psp.sagepub.com/content/25/8/1049.short
Anthropological study demonstrating increased sexual aggression response and acceptance of sexual violence and stereotyping in audiences exposed to stereotypical sexualized imagery: www.morehouse.edu/facstaff/chewitt/Women...
Quantitative study correlating sexist gaming imagery with stereotypically sexist thought: www.springerlink.com/content/d7667776258...
Study of the prevalence of gender stereotyping in advertising imagery, and its role in shaping perceptions of relative political andpersonal power:
springerlink3.metapress.com/content/h178...
Consumer research demonstrating the effect of "idealized" body imagery on self-image and depression: guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/jsc...
Meta study reinforcing the findings that game spaces tend to "reinforce heterosexual male fantasies": dmitriwilliams.com/GameMethods.pdf
I could go on for several hundred more pages, if you like. This is all from the first two pages of a quick search.
This issue is not open for debate. You may take the position that you are just fine with D&D remaining an exclusionary game which reinforces traditional gender roles in its art. You may not argue that such art does not have an effect.
Sadly Prof I think all your work looking that up is wasted (while I guess you didn't do a ton of searching, but looks like a lot of typing). Proof won't matter because in the end it comes down to the fact that some people value the old style of art more than feelings of some people they may or may not know. Maybe they play with all males maybe the women they play with are not bothered by such things, I don't know.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 13, 2012 - 2:29PM
#384
|
|
|
Because if a corporate professional tries to follow business ethics practices (especially in a corporation) they will be fired when the company makes less mony than last quarter (it's literally a law that they have to increase profits each quarter, or be removed). Business ethics and profit are two entirely different things, and while someone can follow business ethics practices or not as they see fit, they either make profit or lose their positions. So one is optional and the other is not...
'Optional' is not the same as 'non-existent' - as I hope we all know from discussions of D&DN's modules.
And where, exactly, is it the law that executives must show profits every quarter or be dismissed? Because it certainly isn't the case here in the UK.
My personal knowledge, incidentally, is of ethical investment funds. These seem to do well enough, so clearly some businesses do take the optional 'not being total bastards' module.
Z.
This article talks about it. Yes, and people that buy ethical investment funds do it because they are ethical and don't buy from other types of funds, however the corporation doesn't care what the funds are, only that a certain group will pay more for them, than for other funds and therefore profit is made...
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 13, 2012 - 2:35PM
#385
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
Lokiare,
that's not an "article." It's an editorial...and it's absolutely wrong. The author's claim that businesses are "legally bound" to deliver profits, and only that,is simply untrue. It's a straw-man of laissez-faire capitalism which only ever existed in the diseased brain of Ayn Rand.
So no, you're simply wrong.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 13, 2012 - 2:35PM
#386
|
|
|
I was talking about the mythology and philosophy of this idea of 'business ethics' not any of the other stuff. Sorry I didn't make it clear. There is no such thing as business ethics.
That's a fascinating unsupported opinion. Of course there's such a thing as business ethics. It's frequently neglected and traduced, but that doesn't make it non-existent. How is your willingness to ignore it different from the willingness of corporate professionals to do so?
Simply mocking a relevant consideration as non-existent is counter-productive. Please don't.
Z.
Because if a corporate professional tries to follow business ethics practices (especially in a corporation) they will be fired when the company makes less mony than last quarter (it's literally a law that they have to increase profits each quarter, or be removed). Business ethics and profit are two entirely different things, and while someone can follow business ethics practices or not as they see fit, they either make profit or lose their positions. So one is optional and the other is not...
That's simply not true. There's no law that says that. There are general goals to increase profit and those are often the plan(and how the corporate world sometimes twists itself in knots to make the plan is not a good thing), but there are plenty of instances where people are ethical and that's the goal of the company.
You turn a blind eye to non-ethical behavior in a company and you often end up losing a lot of profits when it blows up in your face.
See the link I posted it talks about the laws that force profitability on corporations.
When a corporation turns a blind eye to non-ethical behavior, it is doing so because it thinks it can get away with it. The only restraint from every corporation everywhere from doing that is that they would lose profits if they did. Its a fear response, not a responsibility response...
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 13, 2012 - 2:40PM
#387
|
|
|
Taking out the offensive material does not exclude anyone other than those who demand that the product include that offensive material...and those are just the people who*should*be excluded from the hobby. And arguing that D&D art has, historically, been better than, say, Fatal or deviantart is not much of a defense. A cupcake is not as unhealthy as a cup of pure lard...but there's no way to argue that this makes either one "healthy."
To extend your analogy a little. Cupcakes sell in massive amounts. "Healthy" feeds stay unbought on the shelves.
That's not actually terribly accurate. Healthy food sells extremely well, especially factoring in it's generally higher cost, shorter storage life and lesser convenience factor.
I would say the exact opposite of accurate, health food easily outsells cupcakes, I present to you the tomato, whole wheat flour and plain milk. All three healthy and staples of the world's diet, selling far more than any cupcake, I don't even have to look that up, to know it.
Milk is only marginally more healthy than a cupcake due to what goes into the cow, and what is naturally in there (casein, growth hormones, antibiotics, natural acids that offset any benefit from calcium, etc...etc...) if you are health conscious you would drop the milk and find another source of calcium...
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 13, 2012 - 2:46PM
#388
|
|
|
Lokiare,
that's not an "article." It's an editorial...and it's absolutely wrong. The author's claim that businesses are "legally bound" to deliver profits, and only that,is simply untrue. It's a straw-man of laissez-faire capitalism which only ever existed in the diseased brain of Ayn Rand.
So no, you're simply wrong.
Here's a law case where it was ruled that a corporation must remain profitable
Its true. Corporations are required by law to be profitable...
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 13, 2012 - 2:57PM
#389
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
Sorry, once again you're citing an editorial as though it were an article. If you actually read the judge's opinion, he notes very clearly:
"The legal conclusions in this Opinion only relate to whether Jim and Craig breached the fiduciary duties they owe to eBay."
That is, the case was one of whether some employees had violated their contracts with their employing company by failing to fulfill the duties for which they had been hired. That is not legislating that a company maximize profit. A few moments consideration of the philanthropic legacies of corporations such as Ben & Jerry's would have made this clear to you. Heck, it would have been clear had you simply considered WotC's history, which involves a number of decisions whch did not maximize profits. Note the lack of them being sued.
Heavens, if we accepted the claims by some in this thread that "sex sells" as though that were some axiomatic truth, and your claim here, then you'd effectively be claiming that WotC could be sued for *NOT* having a pornographic pinup on every page.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 13, 2012 - 3:28PM
#390
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Since the entire e-Bay decision is a sideshow, I'm putting it in spoiler blocks
Show
I have no idea how that E-Bay decision is supposed to stand for the idea that the law requires corporations to remain profitable. Here's what the decision is about.
e-Bay, Craig, and Jim own craigslist. The shareholder agreement that they entered into said that if e-bay ever competed directly with craigslist, e-Bay lost certain voting rights, and Craig and Jim could freely sell their shares.
e-Bay launched kijiji to compete with craigslist. Craig and Jim then passed corporate resolutions preventing e-Bay from buying more craigslist shares, prevented e-Bay from appointing any board members, giving Craig and Jim first dibs on any attempts by e-Bay to sell its shares in craigslist. Essentially, they unilaterally rewrote the shareholder agreement.
The court held that Craig and Jim, as controlling shareholders of craigslist owe fiduciary duties to e-Bay as a minority shareholder. The duty they owe is not to make a profit. The duty they owe is to not engage in self-dealing. The Court found that what Jim and Craig did was to use e-Bay's loss of voting rights as an opportunity to aggrandize power to themselves. That's an abuse of their position as majority shareholders. The majority cannot use their position to simply disenfranchise minority shareholders.
It has nothing to do with profitability except this: Jim and Craig defended their actions by saying that they weren't trying to disenfranchise E-Bay; they were simply trying to increase craigslist's profits. And the Court said they didn't believe that excuse. The actions had nothing to do with profitability and everythign to do with disenfranchising shareholders.
As the Court wrote "Jim and Craig are not using the Rights Plan improperly to preclude craigslist
stockholders from considering and opting for a value-maximizing transaction." (Page 53)
Also, the Court wrote, "I conclude, based on all of the evidence, that Jim and Craig in fact did not adopt the Rights Plan in response to a reasonably perceived threat or for a proper corporate purpose." (Page 55)
The actions of Jim and Craig "is not fair because it requires eBay, the minority stockholder, to give up more value per share than either Jim or Craig, the majority stockholders and directors" (Page 81)
"The economic effect of this choice was to transfer wealth from eBay to Jim and Craig by virtue of increasing Jim and Craig’s ownership of craigslist at eBay’s expense" (Page 82)
"Jim and Craig have sought to control craigslist’s stockholder composition for their personal and sentimental benefit at eBay’s expense" (page 85)
This case is not about corporations being bound to be profitable. It's about majority shareholders not being allowed to disenfranchise minority shareholders.
|
|
|
