Is it okay to enjoy problematic media?

[nintega137]

By problematic media, I mean stuff that generally has issues of some kind with race, gender, sexuality, or something else of the sort. 

We know that our media is full of really problematic portrayals of groups of people in real life, this exist in every form of media to at least some degree.

Games, movies, books, shows, cartoons, music, ect. 

Of course I don't think that liking any of these things inherently makes anyone say a racist or sexist, but should we be watching (playing, reading whatever) these things if they have that problem? I mean technically by doing so, aren't we feeding the problem and either making it worse or perpetuating it? 

For example: Old Looney Tunes Cartoons were Racist, but is it wrong if people still enjoy it despite being aware of the problems with it's portrayal of people of different skin tones or of different nations or nationalities? 

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

Like the old saying: it is possible to enjoy a piece of media while being critical of it at the same time.

 

[Nepenthe]

It's fine to enjoy media with problems because every media has problems.

What isn't fine is to pitch a fucking fit and deny that any problems exist when someone brings attention to them. A critique of media isn't an inherent critique on the people consuming it.

[Sean]

It's only a problem if you retaliate against criticism by throwing a fit. If you can watch something and acknowledge that there are actual things wrong with it, then that doesn't mean you have to disown it from your interests. The ability to enjoy and discuss things we don't like about the media we otherwise do like is a vital one that separates us from the looneys who praise or lash against media blindly and without reason or compromise.

There are plenty of games I like that have really crappy things about them that irritate or even offend me. The character in my avatar (as of this post) is from an RPG I've been playing lately. As a character she's great, and I think her design is pretty... except for everything below her shoulders. She's literally just wearing a thong that might as well be dental floss. It's actually pretty gross. The crazy thing is that where I am in the story, aside from a bikini-clad ninja none of the other female characters have such outlandish, questionable outfits. The rest of the game also has some irritating stock female caricatures, but overall I still really like the story and character development in it. I just wish some of the fanservice in it isn't as off-putting as it is. These few bad elements of the game aren't going to push me away when there's lots of other, separate things about the game I do like, but neither am I going to totally ignore them and I will bring them up in discussion as actual flaws when talking about it.

[Singapore Sling]

It does raise the question of that sort of thing being important to you, but apparently not important enough to avoid a piece of entertainment that isn't vital to your life at all. 

[Tara]

Everyone pretty much said it best.  All media has its problems with its portrayal of some group or another, and because we don't live in a perfect society, even works that seem perfectly well-intentioned are going to have criticism and discussion about how they portray people.  For example, I love children's entertainment.  It's a stupid passion of mine to examine entertainment meant for audiences maybe like one fourth my age or so?  Anyway, it's just something I enjoy.  There have been great strides in diversity added to these shows lately, which I commend.  But I also criticize because this diversity usually comes in the form of skin color alone.  For example, in some shows, there will be plenty of black characters, which is great!  But, like, why do the black characters literally have the same type of hair as the white characters?  You can do so much when exploring these characters' individual races and the biological factors that differentiate them from other characters of different races, but instead, splashing a different coat of paint on them counts as completely all-inclusive.  Is it sort of racist to just paint a white character black and call it a new character?  Yeah, sorta.  Am I saying that they're hood-wearing KKK members that should be boycotted?  Absolutely not.  I'm merely bringing up a discussion on how the series could improve.  You know, things that you do all the time for other aspects of a series you like.

1 minute ago, Singapore Sling said:

It does raise the question of that sort of thing being important to you, but apparently not important enough to avoid a piece of entertainment that isn't vital to your life at all. 

Because that's called "selective exposure" and only hinders the conversation when you essentially turn on the mute button every time the issue is brought up in a way you don't like.

[Toa Axis]

Of course. Every piece of media has some kind of flawed element one way or another, and we're allowed to enjoy them in spite of it. We also all look for different things in our media, so what may be enjoyable for me may not be enjoyable for you.

The same applies to works that may have potentially objectionable elements. For example, I am a big fan of The Dark Knight, but I don't really agree with the movie's politics. It's insinists that citizens must give up their privacy for the greater good, which I don't fully agree with, something else it says is that society needs to have something to protect their fears onto, that even if it believes in inherent goodness, it also needs to always realize the relative proximity of evil. I don't agree with such a sentiment at all, but I'm still a fan, because overall, it's a very well constructed film.

That's the thing about our taste in media, just because it has elements that can be considered controversial, doesn't mean that such elements necessarily bring down the entire work. Now they certainly can, but that ultimately depends on the individual, as it is he/she that decides what is or isn't valuable to them.

Media can always teach us something, whether it be good or bad, so I don't think that any of it shouldn't be indulged in.

[The Tenth Doctor]

Well I still have a soft spot for Sea World, even with the BlackFish fiasco. I agree, the whales could be better kept but I also have the sense to know they can't be freed now, a life in captivity wouldn't allow them to adapt outside. So yeah, you can enjoy problematic media. You just realise why it might be wrong I guess.

[Singapore Sling]

3 hours ago, Tara said:

Because that's called "selective exposure" and only hinders the conversation when you essentially turn on the mute button every time the issue is brought up in a way you don't like.

But I think that's worth actually talking about. I'm not a big fan of phrasing and terminology ("selective exposure" and "the conversation"), as they tend to be easy to go to words to describe concepts that don't need context, that merely bunch context into preconceived notions, and that's no good either. Taking my point, telling me what the concept is, and thus why my point is wrong on those terms probably hinder "the conversation" just as much.

I think it's a fair point. When I was a teenager and wanted to explore LGBT media, I didn't sit around and hope for the things I already liked to change. I went out and just found that media. I mean, I hated it (and if you told teenage me that Greg Berlanti would come to be one of the strongest forces in genre TV, I'd've probably quit superheroes then and there, cold turkey, no regrets), but it was there and I found it. It didn't really occur to me that there was some lack of representation "of me" in the media because I found a wealth of a genre that did so. A friend of mine and I even did google searches for black-centric comics and the reviews for said works tended to lament the fact that the people who seemed to want them didn't buy them because they were too busy complaining that the stuff they insisted on buying wasn't what they wanted. 

Just as an example, the vastly, outspokenly liberal fanbase of the Marvel Cinematic Universe adores Winter Soldier, a movie that's about a guy dressed up in an American flag whose bad guys are defined only by two traits: "they believe in taking your freedom, with no real context given" and "there's a lot of them." The movie is outright conservative propaganda. I hate that movie. But don't you think that the really socially concerned people who love that movie and do fandom-y things with Steve Rogers and Bucky as lovers, but DON'T expose themselves to LGBT film and media, instead inventing it for themselves in a way that filters money and support into a corporate machine that goes against all their observable politics, should be taken to task a little bit? Isn't there something wrong when I hate Marvel movies and don't go see them or give them money and am generally politically apathetic, but I'm actually doing less to harm the social environment than actively socially progressive, liberal people who insist on feeding Marvel's machine? That seems wrong. It certainly made things difficult for Kevin Feige's fight for diversity against the Marvel brass. And given how easy Blade existed and got a trilogy, or how Spawn was able to be greenlit due to being a geek phenomenon at the time, or how even within the few years we could get a movie like Lucy, I don't think Phases 1 and 2 were necessary evils in terms of casting. 

And look, I agree with most of the thread. There's nothing inherently WRONG with liking something that's sketchy. My favorite show is Gargoyles, which at its core is probably one of the most racist things Disney ever put on TV. Thing is, though...you have to take offensiveness in context. I'm sure a bunch of people would find The Bunny Game offensive, but when you consider that movie was made specifically for the lead actress to relive and purge the trauma of her life's abuse, is that really just as offensive to, say, women as your Hostels or whatever else that're made JUST to exist, with no personal tie-in? And if it isn't, is someone obligated to know or appreciate the context of a work before watching it; and furthermore, what's the cut off-point for how problematic a piece of media is if we find ourselves falling on either side of that fence?

It's all very subjective.

I agree with the thread that there's nothing wrong with liking things that're a little sketchy in terms of certain social values. People aren't perfect, and often stuff like that makes the media even more interesting to talk about. But I do think, if you're passionate about an issue, there's a point where it becomes partially your fault that you didn't seek out alternatives when you likely easily could have.

Selective exposure has its merits as a concept worth bringing up, but it also seems it veers dangerously close to being a way to abstain oneself from an already self-imposed responsibility. You don't sound like you intend it like that, but it's dismissive enough to be worrisome (if you, again, care about this sort of thing).

[Wraith]

I can find something problematic about most things I enjoy. I can still enjoy them, but I can also criticize them when the time comes.  I never got why people have such a problem with doing this, especially nowadays. People get so irritated if you point of a potentially problematic element that it makes actual discussion about something impossible without someone flipping out. Like, at least explain why you think said thing ISN'T problematic instead of mindlessly lashing out. 

I went on a bit of a rant but, yeah it's fine as long as you don't ignore the flaws of the thing.

[Monkey Destruction Switch]

I'd wager that the very attitude that it's "not okay" to enjoy problematic media is partially responsible for people getting really defensive and angry about criticisms and shutting down the conversation.

I'll agree with everything that's been said, and I'll also add...I honestly think "problematic" media can be rather educational. Like, when you watch something that was made a long time ago and displays different social values, that can teach you a lot about how things were like back then and how things have changed. I mean, the values may be really bad, but that certainly doesn't mean you shouldn't learn about them and gain a perspective on how things have progressed, ya know?

[Dizcrybe]

It's not specifically about enjoying "problematic" media for me, but I feel like I'm supposed to be offended at the things that are problematic about it, as opposed to just not having an opinion.

[Tara]

1 hour ago, Singapore Sling said:

But I think that's worth actually talking about. I'm not a big fan of phrasing and terminology ("selective exposure" and "the conversation"), as they tend to be easy to go to words to describe concepts that don't need context, that merely bunch context into preconceived notions, and that's no good either. Taking my point, telling me what the concept is, and thus why my point is wrong on those terms probably hinder "the conversation" just as much.

I'm not sure why you outline "the conversation" as though I'm defining an arbitrary or social term, when it literally just means talking about these issues in general.  When I say that selective exposure is harmful to "the conversation," I'm merely saying "It's sort of hard to talk about this when only one side of the argument is acknowledged." Consider the scenario, deliberately avoiding media that you're sure is (for example) homophobic is well within your right to do so.  I don't watch Family Guy, because I find the amount of racist, homophobic, and whatever else jokes to be excessive and not funny.  But doing so and claiming to have knowledge on homophobia in the industry, for example, would not make for a good conversation.  How was it homophobic?  What makes it that way?  How could it be improved?  If you haven't seen it, you can never know.

At the end of the day, I think there's a personal responsibility to accept that no media is perfect and you're never going to be completely 100% not offended, but it's also okay to talk about what offends you and how the media you love can be improved, and that's what a lot of people don't want to hear.

[nintega137]

Can "problematic" media also be considered useful in some ways? Not something like old cartoons and movies from decades ago where the ideas and society were a lot different. The purpose there is to show what's different now. No what I mean is like when problematic media is made now, couldn't it also have the benefit of providing a potentially useful learning tool if we had enough of the right media to balance it out. I mean as an example to show what is wrong currently and how it can be fixed perhaps? Or like one of those types of analysis where one can look at a certain aspect of media that people normally wouldn't think about, and see how it directly ties into the culture of the medias creation? 

I'm just wondering if this could actually be a learning tool which can be used for good?

[Singapore Sling]

5 hours ago, Tara said:

I'm not sure why you outline "the conversation" as though I'm defining an arbitrary or social term, when it literally just means talking about these issues in general.  When I say that selective exposure is harmful to "the conversation," I'm merely saying "It's sort of hard to talk about this when only one side of the argument is acknowledged." Consider the scenario, deliberately avoiding media that you're sure is (for example) homophobic is well within your right to do so.  I don't watch Family Guy, because I find the amount of racist, homophobic, and whatever else jokes to be excessive and not funny.  But doing so and claiming to have knowledge on homophobia in the industry, for example, would not make for a good conversation.  How was it homophobic?  What makes it that way?  How could it be improved?  If you haven't seen it, you can never know.

At the end of the day, I think there's a personal responsibility to accept that no media is perfect and you're never going to be completely 100% not offended, but it's also okay to talk about what offends you and how the media you love can be improved, and that's what a lot of people don't want to hear.

I agree with your point overall. I just tend to get antsy about certain things. I, personally, am fairly hard to offend (and a lot of my media intake is the sort of stuff most people would frown upon), but can respect that some people do get offended.

I just get perplexed by the discussion of certain problematic media and the...constant support of stuff people call problematic. It's fine to watch or read stuff that offends one's sensibilities if they have a purpose going in, but there's a limit, you know? There's a point where it's clearly not actually doing anything and people are just catching themselves in ruts, rather than solving whatever problems they're setting out to decipher.

[Salamander]

Regarding consumption of problematic media, for myself I read a lot of books which were written up to centuries ago, so obviously the value systems were very different.  If I'm honest, a lot of the time the disconnect between the values of our period and the values of theirs is actually amusing, but it's also possible to recognise areas where dead authors' understanding was leading towards modernity or transcended its time.  The legitimacy of moral judgement of historical action is quite complex, but there have always been people who understood that the common practices of their time were simply wrong, no matter how widely-ingrained they may have been.

9 hours ago, nintega137 said:

Can "problematic" media also be considered useful in some ways? Not something like old cartoons and movies from decades ago where the ideas and society were a lot different. The purpose there is to show what's different now. No what I mean is like when problematic media is made now, couldn't it also have the benefit of providing a potentially useful learning tool if we had enough of the right media to balance it out. I mean as an example to show what is wrong currently and how it can be fixed perhaps? Or like one of those types of analysis where one can look at a certain aspect of media that people normally wouldn't think about, and see how it directly ties into the culture of the medias creation? 

I'm just wondering if this could actually be a learning tool which can be used for good?

Yes.  You can think of it as satire, but on rare occasions I have seen works of fiction criticised as "problematic" which in themselves were obviously intended to be a critique of that same problematic issue.  Granted, it's absolutely fair game to take issue with presentations of unambiguously "bad things" if the presentation is in itself sensationalised or exploitative; I'd do so myself.  But just now and then you catch a failure to recognise that problematic content was not intended to be positive or even innocuous.  It's perhaps an illustration of how deep the flaws in modern media go that it can be possible to confuse positive and negative portrayals.

[Monkey Destruction Switch]

On 1/7/2016 at 4:41 AM, FFWF said:

If I'm honest, a lot of the time the disconnect between the values of our period and the values of theirs is actually amusing

Aha yes, thanks for saying that. It's totally the same for me sometimes x)

Stuff like this cracks me up.

[ju87]

It doesnt really matter because not everyone finds the same things offensive and who cares if you watch something that people might find offensive like I watched Trimph des Willens and nobody really cares

 

Cheers

[Yoko/葉子]

I know I will get hammered for this, but just because the girls in Other M caused problems in the game, does not mean it is intended to be or is sexist. What is it about our society that has to symbolically analyze everything, even if unintended? There have been times in media where males caused all the problems in a story, yet they get a free pass. I don't mind if others like early Power Rangers shows, but even if I don't support the first four season anymore, due to how David Yost was treated, it's not evil to enjoy those seasons.

If people stopped analyzing literally everything in media for problems, we'd be much happier.

[Tara]

I don't think you're understanding why Other M is considered sexist.

The problem with Other M stems from a number of things, but most notably is-

• Samus' disparaging of traditionally feminine traits.
• And yet despite her rejection of those traits, she still embraces them when it revolves around Adam.
• The controlling nature of Adam that is akin to domestic abuse.
• The number of ass shots the game has, even during pivotal and emotional moments where the focus should be on literally anything else.

There are other problems, but I'd be here all day.  Basically, I'm saying that if roles were reversed, I'd be inclined to think that Samus had some sort vendetta against men.

Also, your closing statement is frankly a tad ridiculous.  You're literally just asking people to stop discussing matters that are important to them, because it makes you unhappy.

[nintega137]

Curious question here.

 

Anyone ever heard the argument that you aren't a fan or a part of something if you constantly criticize it or make fun of it? Or point out a bunch of problems you have with it?

[Salamander]

Probably everyone has, along with its parodic counterpart that the true fan is the one who hates something the most.  Of course, there's a very reasonable argument that the people who are the most emotionally invested and interested in something are probably going to be precisely the ones who are paying enough attention to notice the flaws.  As fans we have standards which may be unrealistically high, never accepting anything less than the fantasy experience we imagined just for ourselves, but nonetheless we tend to think of ourselves as fans of a whole franchise rather than of just one or two specific works.  Perhaps that suggests that, as fans, our faith in the core idea of a series is unshakeable, no matter what problems we have with the details.

[Tara]

There does come a point at which negativity is so excess that it's like "why are you even here?"

Like, if you go to see TMNT 2014, for instance, and think "Man, Ninja Turtles is so fucking stupid.  I didn't like it in the 80's and this is the worst one yet," I have to wonder why you're even attending the screening.  I mean, the movie does suck, so you're not wrong, but clearly you don't like it, so why do you subject yourself to the torment of watching it and others to the torment of having to listen to your mindless complaining?  And obviously, I'm not referring to people with like relatives and friends who drag them along for it; I'm referring to people who actually watch it because they hate it and don't even get ironic enjoyment out of it.

That being said, I think the thought process that a fan must be completely invested in every aspect of a movie or series to be a tad ridiculous.  Discussing what works and what doesn't work is literally part of human nature.  We do it with food, we do it with work, we do it with toys, we do it with literally everything, so of course that's going to extend to media we like as well.  That's what makes the concept of fandoms so interesting.  It's not (just) about everyone gushing over the same thing, but about the different things that they enjoyed within the same work(s).

[nintega137]

On 1/16/2016 at 3:10 PM, FFWF said:

Probably everyone has, along with its parodic counterpart that the true fan is the one who hates something the most.  Of course, there's a very reasonable argument that the people who are the most emotionally invested and interested in something are probably going to be precisely the ones who are paying enough attention to notice the flaws.  As fans we have standards which may be unrealistically high, never accepting anything less than the fantasy experience we imagined just for ourselves, but nonetheless we tend to think of ourselves as fans of a whole franchise rather than of just one or two specific works.  Perhaps that suggests that, as fans, our faith in the core idea of a series is unshakeable, no matter what problems we have with the details.

 

On 1/16/2016 at 4:07 PM, Tara said:

There does come a point at which negativity is so excess that it's like "why are you even here?"

Like, if you go to see TMNT 2014, for instance, and think "Man, Ninja Turtles is so fucking stupid.  I didn't like it in the 80's and this is the worst one yet," I have to wonder why you're even attending the screening.  I mean, the movie does suck, so you're not wrong, but clearly you don't like it, so why do you subject yourself to the torment of watching it and others to the torment of having to listen to your mindless complaining?  And obviously, I'm not referring to people with like relatives and friends who drag them along for it; I'm referring to people who actually watch it because they hate it and don't even get ironic enjoyment out of it.

That being said, I think the thought process that a fan must be completely invested in every aspect of a movie or series to be a tad ridiculous.  Discussing what works and what doesn't work is literally part of human nature.  We do it with food, we do it with work, we do it with toys, we do it with literally everything, so of course that's going to extend to media we like as well.  That's what makes the concept of fandoms so interesting.  It's not (just) about everyone gushing over the same thing, but about the different things that they enjoyed within the same work(s).

Uh great answers guys, but maybe I should've elaborated a bit more on what I mean.

 

 

Now I don't hate bigal or anything (in fact I used to watch his rants all the time, when they were more frequent) but while listening to this part in particular I wasn't entirely sure what to feel. That's why I asked because I don't have a firm yes or no stance with this, I'm just kinda lost at the moment. 

 

[Tara]

That rant is full of shit.

Hate to be blunt, but honestly, he's so caught up in ranting that I think he's forgetting basic logic.  That is, 1) the fact that opinions change overtime, 2) the fact that as you grow, you become more aware, and 3) it's possible to enjoy things while still pointing out its flaws.

It's like he's trying to make a point, but didn't really have anything prepared.