Lily analyizes Book 4 and Kuvira's character in this latest video.
watch?v=wlqiFzDagJI
Feel free to discuss.
Lily analyizes Book 4 and Kuvira's character in this latest video.
watch?v=wlqiFzDagJI
Feel free to discuss.
It's usually "love the sinner, hate the sin" logic.
Well, I have tried to find some sort of non-biased source of information and so far, any attempts to ask for a link to a video that would suggest actual homophobia remained responseless.
Going by "In dubio pro reo", I'm going to consider the possibillity that whatever Josh Scorcher said might have been misrepresented until I have further information. Wouldn't be the first time a scandal is started over nothing in perticular and every person I found that talked about this seemed like the kind of person you usually find lurking around whenever something needs to be taken out of context, blown out of proportion or overinterpreted.
No shit.
This is exactly what I'm saying, you seem to have a problem grasping the concept that people do this. This doesn't mean they don't, as you seem to think, it just makes you extremely vulnerable to it yourself. Because if you can't recognize that people believe contradictory things, then you try to rationalize away the contradictions, & that's exactly how doublethink happens.
Because people are unreasonable.
I don't think I'm likely to commit a doublethink, if that's what you're implying. I feel like doublethink requires some sort of opinion or strong conviction. I just perceive and try to understand why people do what they do.
If I had already understood these people, I wouldn't ask why they do what they do.
Hoo, boy...again: I am not interested in selling you off of Josh Scorcher. I simply don't buy what seems to be a fairly popular narrative, perpetuated by his fans, of Lily Peet (much as I think her assessments are wrongheaded and her response to legitimate criticism is even more so) as an evil harassing bully and him as an innocent blameless victim.
But not only do you seem to still be operating on the premise that I'm trying to sell you off of him? Your arguments here are...well, kind of flawed.
I won't deny that the source on his having an issue with same-gender pairings was biased. It was incredibly biased...in his favor. In fact, it was primarily a tirade against Lily Peet (on dA, if that rings any bells).
And, again: my source in this case was someone trying to defend him, on the grounds that having an issue with queer content because it's queer isn't real homophobia. I'm not sure if this source was the aforementioned dA screed (although your assessment of the author as a probable drama-llama would fit); but if it was: what would that person have to gain by admitting to something that reflects poorly on Scorcher? It was Lily Peet they were trying to paint in a negative light, on the grounds that she was unjustly defaming him as a homophobe; it's all a matter of context.
I mean...if it's the same tartlet, I agree with you that the individual in question did seem like a drama-llama. But aside from how bringing up one's perception of their character could be interpreted as an ad hominem: the fact that they were defending him makes their being a drama-llama kind of irrelevant.
I think we've seen the same person on deviantArt.
And I can't help it if phrases are trotted out. Misrepresentation, cases of statements taken out of context and exaggeration still happen. And unless I find any sort of solid evidence, I'm not sure what other possibillities are reasonable to consider.
And while you're right that it is weird that this one person would admit to something Josh *didn't do*, seeing as they are, indeed, very biased in his favour, I really can't make a case against Josh based on this rant, because it didn't seem like a trustworthy source. Especially since I found lots of rants about Josh that complained him, saying mean things about popular video-games, calling his views on Okami "controversial" but nothing that actually linked to a homophobic statement he'd have made. Dunno, maybe that dA-person misinterpreted something or they responded to false claims, just to spite the opinions of his internet-opponents. Maybe they wanted to bring in their own opinion about queer content.
I honestly don't know. I don't want to handwave the accusations against a person, just because I kinda like some of his videos, but I don't want to suspect him based on a potentially drunken rant on DeviantArt, either.
Update:
However, I have also found a tumblr-Post from him (Or someone using his name) in which he asks his fanbase to not make same-s*x shipping fanart of him and his OC because he isn't into it and it would make him incomfortable. I'm not sure wether that qualifies as homophobia. I'd go with 'No' but if there's one thing I have learned it's that I'm usually wrong.
I'm aware that smear campaigns exist, so: fair enough on that count. It remains that the "overreacting" script is more often than not a derailing tactic. (To roughly summarize: the person using the tactic doesn't perceive a problem; therefore, they conclude that the problem must be objectively nonexistent, and that the motives of anyone who disagrees must be suspect.)
It still remains that the popular narrative concerning the feud between Josh Scorcher and Lily Peet is that he did nothing wrong, while she's just evil and out to ruin his reputation. For all that I'm no fan of hers: in light of what I do know of their feud, that narrative rings decidedly false.
Now, if he was actually talking about having a comfort zone concerning his self-inserts or OCs (not inherently homophobic, although it might be an indication of the casual sort)? That's significantly different from what the dA drama-llama attributed to him in his ostensible defense. And if that's what the drama-llama was referring to, he's being actively and unfavorably misrepresented by an alleged defender...which doesn't really make much sense unless the drama-llama is trying to passive-aggressively discredit either him, herself, or both of them.
Going by what the drama-llama wrote aside that notion, it might have been a case of poor phrasing.
"He doesn't like gay ships" is a pretty vague statement, in my opinion: It can mean that one, personally, isn't into gay pairings or doesn't feel comfortable looking at them, which might be influenced by homophobic subtext within our society, but isn't actual homophobia, as far as I'm concerned, it could also mean they dislike same-sex couples in a sense that they do not approve of them, which would be homophobia. It could also mean he has a weird aversion against homosexual water vessels, but I think we can all agree that's not very likely.