<div class="quote"><i> <p>Love Robin wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Supermensch wrote:
And Robin, did you really have to involve race in an analogy about character tropes? "So just as a person can talk and act like, say, a black person" Right, a person's race totally makes them "act and talk" a certain way... That's pretty offensive, you know.</i></div>
<p>First, you don't know *my* ethnicity. [...] MUST racial tropes define ethnicities? No, they shouldn't. However when someone of an ethnicity tries NOT to use the street argot of their area, they are ridiculed and told to their faces that they "are not ______". Apparently I was an "Oreo" as I grew up. </p><p>THAT is what *I* find offensive. </p> </div> <p>No, I don't know your ethnicity, though I dunno what that has to do with the problematicness of the statement. I think racial identity politics can certainly be... sketchy. But finding one issue offensive doesn't make everything else inoffensive. </p><p>Anyway, the reason why I find the statement problematic is because claiming people act certain ways because of their race is the thing racists and xenophobes do to justify the assertion that certain races/non-Western foreign immigrants are inherently predisposed towards violence and crime. </p>

<p>As to the Mary Sue stuff, I hope we can all agree to the consensus that the precise definition of the term isn't as widely agreed on as some of us would like. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Supermensch wrote: No, I don't know your ethnicity, though I dunno what that has to do with the problematicness of the statement. I think racial identity politics can certainly be... sketchy. But finding one issue offensive doesn't make everything else inoffensive. </p><p>Anyway, the reason why I find the statement problematic is because claiming people act certain ways because of their race is the thing racists and xenophobes do to justify the assertion that certain races/non-Western foreign immigrants are inherently predisposed towards violence and crime. </p> </i></div>
<p>While true that racists tend to do that, it does not invalidate the <i>reality</i> that certain groups *do* express different mannerisms and traits. Hell, it's true of *individuals*, which is something the best impressionists capitalize upon. </p><p>I don't know your background and ethnicity, but as a light-skinned black woman who grew up in a Bronx neighborhood filled with Blacks, Italians, Jews, and Hispanics, *each* have and express traits specific to their ethnic cultures. In fact many will exaggerate their local ethnic argot and jargon just to be accepted by their local ethnic community. This is a reality. As I mentioned before, try using your White father's speech mannerisms instead of your black mother's, and see what problems you'll face from your black community. And vice versa. As a writer I can *easily* convey the ethnicity of (most) characters simply by their speech, unless they are the type of character to rise above it. </p><p>At a time when a vocal minority of Mexican Americans were working to get the Frito Bandito removed from the airwaves, the Hispanic Community in my neighborhood were <i>proudly</i> singing it, proud to have hispanic representation on the TV. In fact were highly upset iut was removed, (wrongly) blaming it on "Da Man keeping us down, mang!". So even the same ethnic group were at odds. </p><p>Anyway, if you ever find the statement that ethnics do <i>not</i> have specific trait expressions, try walking in an area not or your own ethnicity at night and see if you don't get accosted by someone claiming "ju lost, Holmes? Mus' be, ju obviously don' belong in <i>dis</i> neighborhood." Or the opposite if you try to talk and act without using your local street speech patterns. </p><p>I *lived* these situations. Grew up with them. </p>

<p>It's certainly true that some ethnic identities are closely tied to a culture exclusive to that ethnicity, but that doesn't make that culture <i>inherent</i> to a person of that ethnicity in the same way one's genome and genealogy is inherent to a person. That doesn't mean people won't still expect you to behave in certain ways depending on your ethnicity, of course, but it's an important distinction to make. Further, it's not like black culture is as uniform/unified/universal as the phrase "talk and act like a black person" would seem to suggest. How often do you see gangsta rap, reggae and black gospel/church culture intersect? </p>

<p>So it's wrong to dismiss someone's argument as invalid, fallacious, or stupid? </p><p>Oh wait, I see what has you 2 so mad, <i>someone did it to you</i>. You're just venting your personal frustrations with me. </p><p>I see no reason to continue addressing this subject, especially since the argument has deteriorated to "Oh yeah? Well, you're wrong because I don't like you!" </p>

<div class="quote"><i>Supermensch wrote:
As to the Mary Sue stuff, I hope we can all agree to the consensus that the precise definition of the term isn't as widely agreed on as some of us would like.</i></div>
<p>As I stated up-thread: hell, the character to whom the designation is a reference is what would be called a "Parody Sue" nowadays.  (There was some question as to whether or not she was a parody, so I looked it up.  And the author <i>was</i>, in fact, snarking stories in which ridiculous over-the-top original characters immediately win every heart the author deems worth winning, save the day repeatedly, and—as often as not—die at the end because they're too good for this sinful universe.)
</p><p>Interestingly enough, it seems that the character—albeit on a technicality—is actually considered <i>canon</i>.  (And Memory Gamma decided to run with that.) </p>

<div class="quote"><i>Neo Bahamut wrote:
So it's wrong to dismiss someone's argument as invalid, fallacious, or stupid? <p>Oh wait, I see what has you 2 so mad, <i>someone did it to you</i>. You're just venting your personal frustrations with me. </p><p>I see no reason to continue addressing this subject, especially since the argument has deteriorated to "Oh yeah? Well, you're wrong because I don't like you!" </p> </i></div>
<p>It's wrong to dismiss someone's argument as invalid, fallacious, or stupid when it is none of those things. Robin gave you an argument by definition, followed by a simple comparison to help explain the definition at issue. Then you misconstrued (possibily deliberately) that as something completely different and dismissed that argument without actually addressing the real argument by definition. You told us what you *think* the definition should be, but you by yourself thinking that does not make make that definition valid. You need the consensus of a much larger group of people for that, and you simply don't have it, and I think you recognzied that so you latched onto something else to attack. So attack what he compares it to all you want. That doesn't do anything to undermine the definition that's at issue. That definition stands independent of any comparison or analogy anyone can make. So you're not wrong because I don't like you. You're wrong because you're trying to apply principles of logic that are simply inapplicable to this case. And <i>that </i>is invalid, fallacious, and stupid. </p>

<div class="quote"><i>McJediProbie wrote:
<i>Not </i>a fallacious analogy. Just because definitions can change, doesn't mean this particular definition has.</i></div>
<p>These last two paragraphs are why it's so hard to really nail down a definition of "Mary Sue": the term has started to be used in a much wider context, and to mean much wider things, than it once did, and there's no way to figure out which of those characteristics are necessary and sufficient to define a Mary Sue. </p><p>So, how do you know what the majority of people think? </p><p>Also, if i'm not wrong, Love Robin is a bissexual middleaged woman maried with children and a therapist. </p>

<p>We know that when the term was first coined, a majority of analysts applied it only to fan-created characters. The article you linked specifically says "Originally, the term used to apply exclusively to fanfiction." Then over time it started to gradually be used more widely. But those wider uses have still not been accepted by enough analysts to justify incorporating them into the definition. Just the simple fact that there's <i>this</i> <i>much</i> controversy about it is indicative of that. Until there is a consensus on that, the proper way to conduct an analysis on the topic is to fall back to the last definition that was firmly established by a majority. </p>

<p>A sex therapist. Who dismisses all available research on inbreeding depression as "scare tactics." Right, & I'm the Queen of England. </p> <div class="quote"><i>(There was some question as to whether or not she was a parody, so I looked it up. And the author was, in fact, snarking stories in which ridiculous over-the-top original characters immediately win every heart the author deems worth winning, save the day repeatedly, and—as often as not—die at the end because they're too good for this sinful universe.)</i></div>
<p>Yeah, now that I look again, it says that right on the page. </p>