The Rouge the Bat topic

[Splash the Otter]

Sometimes people are bad people for what they think.

Even if that were the case (and I doubt it is), thinking Rouge looks like a whore wouldn't make someone a bad person. Misguided, certainly, but not bad.

 

A lot of people wouldn't consider that to be a bad thing, though. They'd think ManRouge was a cool Casanova type.

Except being called a womanizer doesn't have nearly the same amount of weight to it as being called a "slut."  James Bond and Duke Nukem are womanizers, but they're considered heroes regardless.

Maybe it's just me (and it probably is), but if Rouge were male, he would likely come across as whorish to me. I never liked Casanova-esque characters though, so maybe I'm biased.

[Tara]

Even if that were the case (and I doubt it is), thinking Rouge looks like a whore wouldn't make someone a bad person. Misguided, certainly, but not bad.

Regardless, the fact that they are so misguided means they need to be educated on the matter, and sometimes bluntness is the only way to achieve that, especially when it pertains to something that is so ingrained in our culture that it's become hard for many people to see why it's wrong.

 

Maybe it's just me (and it probably is), but if Rouge were male, he would likely come across as whorish to me. I never liked Casanova-esque characters though, so maybe I'm biased.

The point is that regardless of your perceptions of the character archetype, it's still seen as more socially acceptable for a male due to the "men will be men" and "men just want to score" mindset that's widely circulated.

[TryhardDreamer]

My thoughts on Rouge: irrelevant with nice tits (nuf said)

The above comment exists. Fact.

[Jet Prower]

Regardless, the fact that they are so misguided means they need to be educated on the matter, and sometimes bluntness is the only way to achieve that, especially when it pertains to something that is so ingrained in our culture that it's become hard for many people to see why it's wrong.

 

 

The point is that regardless of your perceptions of the character archetype, it's still seen as more socially acceptable for a male due to the "men will be men" and "men just want to score" mindset that's widely circulated.

 

Can't you get to a point where you are too blunt with what you may say to someone's opinions to where they will instinctively close up and become even more defensive because it can almost seem like you are attacking them? I know that is not always the case of course, but I do think you can be too hard on some people when they may not know any better.

[Tara]

Can't you get to a point where you are too blunt with what you may say to someone's opinions to where they will instinctively close up and become even more defensive because it can almost seem like you are attacking them? I know that is not always the case of course, but I do think you can be too hard on some people when they may not know any better.

Depends on your definition of blunt and how clear you make your intent.  Just the other day, a friend of mine was sent spiraling into tears because some bitch made a comment that "people with Asperger's have no feelings."  I think she did the right thing by educating her with blunt force whilst not attacking her as a person.  The woman saw the affect her remark had on her, and (from what she told me) it made the woman interested in actually learning about what Asperger's Syndrome actually is and how it affects people.

 

Now, if she'd said something like "fuck you, ya ableist piece of shit go die in a fire."  Then yes, that would definitely be going too far.  But if someone is overtly defensive because you bluntly told them exactly what they did wrong, that's still a problem on their part.  It shows that they care more for their own feelings than the people they're hurting.  Basically, the "I'm offended that you're offended" mindset, which is a mindset that holds nothing but utter tat.

 

Of course, I think a big problem in this regard comes from the general atonality of online communication.  For some reason, when negativity is directed at someone, it always tends to sound like the person is yelling or generally being uptight when chances are they could just be sitting back, smoking a cigar, laughing, or whatever else.  Yes, you can doctor your post to look more friendly, but there's a limit to how far that can go before people look at it and see it as simply not that big of a deal, and even at that, some people look at the smilies or whatever else you may use and take it as condescending sarcasm.  ("lol hey thats sexist but that's okay you didn't know any better [implied, according to some people: you're an immature, sexist twat.] ")

 

Also, not to say that two wrongs make a right, because that's far from the case, but when people are so blunt about the subject itself, then I'd say it hardly warrants trying to make sure your post is gentle.  There's a limit to how far you can go with a "peaceful protest."  Attacking someone is wrong, plain and simple.  But being firm and straightforward is sometimes the only thing you can use to combat it, because chances are the opposing side is going to use just as much as bluntness, if not more, to excuse such maltreatment.

[Splash the Otter]

Bluntness is perfectly fine in my opinion, but I know from experience that if people think you're being rude or accusatory, they won't listen to you. As a result, I've always believed that politeness is the best course of action.

[Tara]

Bluntness is perfectly fine in my opinion, but I know from experience that if people think you're being rude or accusatory, they won't listen to you. As a result, I've always believed that politeness is the best course of action.

Blunt is not the same as impolite, and in any case, I find it to be a case-by-case basis.  I want to believe that a sizable portion of people can be won over (or at the very least, made aware) through polite, civil discourse.  I remember hearing once that the best way to get people on your side is through laughter, and while I believe that to be the most preferable option, humor is a very complicated issue which has the potential to either work tremendously in your favor or offend people who disagree with or misinterpret your approach.  (Or worse case scenario, it makes your entire cause out to be a joke, so nobody takes it seriously.)

 

So yes, I agree that politeness is preferable, but you can be polite while still being firm, and in the case of being accusatory, sometimes people have to be called out on their actions.  Granted, they should never be attacked for it, but they should know exactly why what they're doing is wrong.  Further, it's kind of hard to not be accusatory when people have different levels at which they feel like they're being accused of a wrongdoing.  Some people will snap if someone dares suggest they might be insensitive if they make a racist joke, no matter how kindly stated.  It's unfortunately human nature to get offended in some manner.  It's what you take away from the experience of being offended that I think defines you as a person.  If you let your ego cloud your ability to calmly understand why some people might be offended at something or why something is perceived to be wrong, then that's one's own problem.  But if you use your natural instinct to be offended to sit down and understand why something is offensive or how you could prevent this from happening in the future, then that at least shows you're trying.  You may see their point and decide to adjust your behavior accordingly, or you may not.  Rather you're right or wrong in either case is purely circumstantial.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

The point being that there's a golden rule: treat others the way you want to be treated yourself.

 

Or more concisely, "karma"; If you end up treating or calling people shit or something demeaning, then expect demeaning shit to be returned back at you. And it's not always about tone; you can be nice about it all you want, but that doesn't mean it's not demeaning if you're still shaming and belittling in the process, hence why people return that shame right back in the form of firm bluntness.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

i am playing Sonic Adventure 2 and i think Rouge is the cutest girl Sonic character. her English voice is soo cute but they changed it to make her sound old. and now they make her sound like 14 year old girl trying to be sexy.

 

but it's better than Sonic X voice. she's still very cute <3

[8ther]

Between the failed attempt to redesign her(Heroes), the inconsistency with her abilities(switching between kickboxing and throwing ring/bat/heart bombs) and the fact that they see her as Shadow's sidekick who should never appear in a game without him, i'm getting the feeling that Sonic Team didn't know what they wanted to do with Rouge after SA2.

 

It's a shame, she's my favorite Sonic character yet she's probably among the most un-utilized characters in the series.