Star Trek: Discovery

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Galactus

Shatner is a Republican, right? I don't follow everything he puts out there but I've read he likes Trump but perhaps not to the point that it makes him too problematic. Dwight Schultz who played Barclay in Next Gen and Voy is pretty far to the right and apparently has his own Alex Jones-esque radio show.

None of these examples suit the current methodology. These are both people who were involved with Star Trek decades ago now and have had no involvement at all in the current cultural movement that has overran the Intellectual Property completely.

Originally Posted by Galactus

Just because Star Trek is supposed to promote progressive ideals doesn't mean that people working on the show are progressive or liberal.

I'm not saying that you are too far off in this one - Rodenberry was extremely liberal. But you are definitely looking at this one through your own, modernized lens. Liberalism back then was not what it is now.

When Star Trek was born, liberalism back then is what most normally and well balanced people are today in the center.

Originally Posted by Galactus

Heck even though the franchise unashamedly wears it's politics on its sleeve it's suprinsing the amount of right leaning fans see it as a more Conservative leaning show.

Again, and you aren't going to like this because it's basically putting your perceptions on trial a bit, but it's only through your lens, and the lens of other people that don't actually understand the origins, the temporal motion, and current reality of where most rational people are nowadays on these spectrums. I'm sorry, but it's true. Your interpretation of this has gone through your own filter of understanding.

And so, it's not that I'm arguing that your Math is wrong based on your understanding. Instead, it's that I'm pointing out that your understanding is skewed and so it's created your math.

STD is a show for liberal extremism that has intentionally walked what was the traditional lover of Star Trek out the door so as to appear heroic to a new audience which it believes is out there. STD is an invasion of the foolishness that liberalism has become as it crusades against a mostly invented & contrived enemy.

[Sumac]

I don't see what actors personal beliefs should have to do with their characters and a show in general.

In the modern world, SJW-**** had sipped even into idea that actors could be only of certain race and faith, if they want to portray certain characters, which is ********.

[Jester]

Man Mirror Universe brig force fields are pointless...

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Sumac

I don't see what actors personal beliefs should have to do with their characters and a show in general.

In the modern world, SJW-**** had sipped even into idea that actors could be only of certain race and faith, if they want to portray certain characters, which is ********.

Modern liberalism is hate, and SJW's are now latching on anything they can regarding "personal beliefs" and "thought crimes" to exclude, hate on, and ruin people. The people employing these tactics are the true scum of the Earth.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by IMJ

None of these examples suit the current methodology. These are both people who were involved with Star Trek decades ago now and have had no involvement at all

Also about Dwight Schultz... nobody even knew he was a republican until about a year ago. Now? Guess who will never, ever be asked to return as "Barclay" by this very tolerant left?

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by IMJ

None of these examples suit the current methodology. These are both people who were involved with Star Trek decades ago now and have had no involvement at all in the current cultural movement that has overran the Intellectual Property completely.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting that the people currently in charge of the Star Trek franchise are deliberately hiring only liberal or progressive people? Are you just talking about actors or also including writers, directors, crew?

I'm not saying that you are too far off in this one - Rodenberry was extremely liberal. But you are definitely looking at this one through your own, modernized lens. Liberalism back then was not what it is now.

When Star Trek was born, liberalism back then is what most normally and well balanced people are today in the center.

Conservatism is not what it used to be either. I used to think Conservatives during the Dubya Bush era were it a little touched but if you'd have told me then that conspiracy theories about satanic pedophilia cults and brainwashing chips and alternate electors would be part of mainstream Conservative discourse I never would have believed you. Also most people tend to identity as moderates because their ideas sound perfectly normal to them. Most don't know were their ideas fit on an actual political spectrum. Plus what is the center ground shifts too.

STD is a show for liberal extremism that has intentionally walked what was the traditional lover of Star Trek out the door so as to appear heroic to a new audience which it believes is out there. STD is an invasion of the foolishness that liberalism has become as it crusades against a mostly invented & contrived enemy.

It's strange for me to stick up for the new crop of Trek shows as they've missed the mark for me so far. I do find however my issues with Discovery and Picard are vastly different than average ranty alt rights fans.

When the first complaints about Discovery before the show had even aired was that the lead character was going to be a black woman I just rolled my eyes. Like were the **** were they during the 80s-90s period. Trek has always been diverse since the beginning but there was a partern from Next Gen onwards in casting it's lead roles were you can tell they acknowledged that representation mattered (until they chickened out with Enterprise). All of a sudden now it was problem. Nah. Star Trek didn't change not in this aspect it was a certain section of the audience that became more extreme.

Originally Posted by Sumac

I don't see what actors personal beliefs should have to do with their characters and a show in general.

The gist of the letter is that they believe that certain bigots have become very vocal in the Star Trek fandom and they hope that if the talent behind the various Star Trek shows speak out it will make said bigots think twice.

In the modern world, SJW-**** had sipped even into idea that actors could be only of certain race and faith, if they want to portray certain characters, which is ********.

There are reasons why people advocate for that. Firstly that it evens the field in an industry even now is still weighted heavily in favour of straight white actors. Secondly there's a certain line of thinking it helps give a character a more authentic feel if they are the same race/ethnicity/faith as the character they are portraying. As someone who has worked as an actor I wouldn't personally go as far as to make this a hard rule but the reasons behind this line of thinking is valid.

But hey if you feel it truly doesn't matter what someones race or ethnicity is you wont complain the next time a major franchise a traditionally white character is played by a person of colour?

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Also about Dwight Schultz... nobody even knew he was a republican until about a year ago. Now? Guess who will never, ever be asked to return as "Barclay" by this very tolerant left?

It's not that Dwight Schultz is a Republican it's that he's apparently some far right conspiracy peddling nut. I don't think it's a bad thing at to not give someone like that any attention.

For as much as the arts seem to naturally attract more liberal minded people there's no shortage of Conservatives working in the entertainment industry. Heck there are Trump supporters that still get work...it's the real far right weirdos that spoil it for themselves.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Also about Dwight Schultz... nobody even knew he was a republican until about a year ago. Now? Guess who will never, ever be asked to return as "Barclay" by this very tolerant left?

Not under the current regime he sure as hell won't be asked. The left is modern hate. They are disingenuous. They are liars. Don't believe them.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by IMJ

None of these examples suit the current methodology. These are both people who were involved with Star Trek decades ago now and have had no involvement at all in the current cultural movement that has overran the Intellectual Property completely.

And even when they were involved... how much did Shatner or Schultz have to do with anything creative decisions-wise? Zero, or close to zero, to be sure. Maybe Shatner had some pull on Star Trek V (and look how that went), that's all.

TD is a show for liberal extremism that has intentionally walked what was the traditional lover of Star Trek out the door so as to appear heroic to a new audience which it believes is out there. STD is an invasion of the foolishness that liberalism has become as it crusades against a mostly invented & contrived enemy.

Very true. The thing is, though, it's not a very smart show. It'd be one thing if it was smartly constructed (as in not "mandatory # of explosions per episode, everybody screaming at one another, at least a couple of brutal killings per episode, Burnham crying at least once per episode, and at least one scene with two gay people talking to one another", and so on) with then the kind of liberal talking points you'd expect set up as window dressing, or presented incidentally.

But yeah.

Originally Posted by Galactus

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting that the people currently in charge of the Star Trek franchise are deliberately hiring only liberal or progressive people? Are you just talking about actors or also including writers, directors, crew?

I think that'd be a fair suggestion. Or at least, they certainly wouldn't hire anybody -- cast or crew alike -- that is a known republican. If they wanted to bring back Worf and, oops, it turns out Michael Dorn a republican (note: I have no idea his political leanings... and that's probably a good thing!)... probably the old guard get some measure of leeway as long as they're not too outspoken about it, but that's it.

Though I defy you to point to one cast or crew member on STD or STP who is a known republican.

There are reasons why people advocate for that. Firstly that it evens the field in an industry even now is still weighted heavily in favour of straight white actors. Secondly there's a certain line of thinking it helps give a character a more authentic feel if they are the same race/ethnicity/faith as the character they are portraying.

Fun fact: # of straight white males on STD since season 1? A whopping 1, if you include evil Mirror Universe Lorca. 2 if you include the pirate bad guy with the giant mask this season (I mean, I'm assuming he's straight... maybe he's not). I mean, those were literally the casting calls. Sounds pretty racist to me.

Come to think of it, STP, beyond Picard himself (who is bullied, chastised, and then literally killed off and put into a dumb robot to get him away from his "white privilege," lol)... anybody? Eh. Riker, but he's pre-existing (and apparently has a thing for transgender people, anyway). Nobody new that I can think of. Maybe Picard's neighbor, though that dude was being a little creepy so who knows.

It's not that Dwight Schultz is a Republican it's that he's apparently some far right conspiracy peddling nut. I don't think it's a bad thing at to not give someone like that any attention.

I started to listen to one of his podcasts a couple of months back just to see what the fuss was about and listened to maybe the first 20 minutes or so. Maybe it was his first one. Beyond singing Trump's praises I didn't hear anything that smacked of "far right conspiracy" theories.

I mean, what, is he banging the drum loudly about election fraud lately or something? What is it?

For as much as the arts seem to naturally attract more liberal minded people there's no shortage of Conservatives working in the entertainment industry. Heck there are Trump supporters that still get work...

Yeah, that's called "half of the country." So strange that half of the country might get employed in the entertainment industry! Wow.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Galactus

Conservatism is not what it used to be either. I used to think Conservatives during the Dubya Bush era were it a little touched but if you'd have told me then that conspiracy theories about satanic pedophilia cults and brainwashing chips and alternate electors would be part of mainstream Conservative discourse I never would have believed you. Also most people tend to identity as moderates because their ideas sound perfectly normal to them. Most don't know were their ideas fit on an actual political spectrum. Plus what is the center ground shifts too.

Those conspiracy types are just a faction of Conservatives, much like SJW is just a faction of a greater Democratic wing.
Most conservatives, AFAIK, don't believe this conspiracy crap.

Originally Posted by Galactus

Nah. Star Trek didn't change not in this aspect it was a certain section of the audience that became more extreme.

People see at as a problem, because, times have changed: before introducing character of color or a different sexual orientation, was just that - introducing a character. Rarely creators allowed themselves to be celebrated for the "inclusion" and "diversity". The real strength of the shows was in the story and how those characters have been written.

Nowadays, when non-white character is introduced you tend to hear grandiose speeches on how "progressive this show is" despite the fact that characters of a different skin color or different sexual orientation has appeared in the shows for decades. Worse yet, the shows quite often written with SJW morality in mind ("white people are bad, non-whites are saints"), which supplants good writing for story and characters.

Basically, instead of being a good story in itself, show becomes a (badly designed) propaganda of stuff, that is already there. It's like celebrating that women get lead roles in the movies, despite the fact that women were getting lead roles throughout the history of the cinema industry as a whole.

This is why a lot of people, understandably apprehensive, when show goes out of it way to promote non-white character, because, a lot of people suspect (and rightly so), that those characters introduced for the "wrong reason". Not to make story better, but just to have "token representation" (as if we are in the 50s), which usually amount to either underwritten character or a Mary Sue who can do now wrong and reads moral spiels to other characters, even though in-story they are much more qualified to make moral and ethical judgements.

Calling everyone who is disappointed with the way how things are, "bigots" is a very reductive approach, which accomplishes nothing and builds even bigger antagonism among people. I won't argue that some of those people are racists, but when a lot of people, suddenly start complaining about something, with which they had no issues years ago, it is not a bigotry. Or it is some very weird bigotry.

Originally Posted by Galactus

There are reasons why people advocate for that. Firstly that it evens the field in an industry even now is still weighted heavily in favour of straight white actors. Secondly there's a certain line of thinking it helps give a character a more authentic feel if they are the same race/ethnicity/faith as the character they are portraying. As someone who has worked as an actor I wouldn't personally go as far as to make this a hard rule but the reasons behind this line of thinking is valid.

But hey if you feel it truly doesn't matter what someones race or ethnicity is you wont complain the next time a major franchise a traditionally white character is played by a person of colour?

No, reasons to hire only certain actors for certain roles are never valid, unless you talk only about very specific examples.

Not only it goes against the very idea of "acting" its also demotes people to basically functions.

"Oh, you are Black? OK, you gonna play this role of a Black guy, even though nothing in your background and experiences are like that character, but your color of the skin fits so you do fit for this role".

Its probably as much racist as the outright racism, because, it assumes that people share opinions and experiences based on the external factors like skin color or a sexual orientation. Not to mention, it basically pushes us back several decades ago, because it is basically racial, sex and faith profiling. Another totalitarian concept, which welcomed by the left, by the way.

Also, I am not sure why "balance should be improved"? If we talk in proportions most people in US are white, so why movies should be like 50/50 white and black? Are we judging societies by quotas? In what world it is normal?

I think, that ethnicity doesn't matter for the newly created characters. However, when "creators" take old character and changes them purely for the political points, it is ****ed up. It doesn't serves anything, it doesn't make anything better, it's just scores points with few Twitter nutjobs, while confusing and angering everyone else.

Also, characters do matter. You can't simply take a character and change everything about them and pretend it is the same character as before (or better, as SJW'd like to tell, when they do they thing).
Characters like words, they have meanings. Change the meaning of the word and it could become better. Or worse. But meaningless change is poisonous. It accomplishes nothing, while confusing people and makes the whole meaning redundant.

To put it simply you can't make a word mean something and everything at the same time. Those thing are mutually exclusive. You either have word with meaning, or you have a word which means nothing and therefore accomplishes nothing.

Originally Posted by Galactus

For as much as the arts seem to naturally attract more liberal minded people there's no shortage of Conservatives working in the entertainment industry. Heck there are Trump supporters that still get work...it's the real far right weirdos that spoil it for themselves.

The horror, people of all walks of life can be artists and creators.
Must be tough to sleep at night while knowing this.

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I think that'd be a fair suggestion. Or at least, they certainly wouldn't hire anybody -- cast or crew alike -- that is a known republican. If they wanted to bring back Worf and, oops, it turns out Michael Dorn a republican (note: I have no idea his political leanings... and that's probably a good thing!)... probably the old guard get some measure of leeway as long as they're not too outspoken about it, but that's it.

Though I defy you to point to one cast or crew member on STD or STP who is a known republican.

I don't know the political leanings of any of the Star Trek Discovery cast and I certainly don't know about the crew. I am aware that all of the Star Trek The Next Generation mains (other than Muldaur who doesn't have any social media presence so we don't know) are all very anti-Trump. So do you think this Democrats only rule was in force back in the 80s and 90s?

Seriously though this whole idea that Star Trek only hires people that are left leaning just sounds like paranoid bulls**t. What kind of background checks to do think they do for that? I'd imagine as long as you've not posted anything too problematic ie: racist/sexist/homophobic/anti-trans stuff or harassed victims of school shootings you're probably okay to work on Star Trek.

Fun fact: # of straight white males on STD since season 1? A whopping 1, if you include evil Mirror Universe Lorca. 2 if you include the pirate bad guy with the giant mask this season (I mean, I'm assuming he's straight... maybe he's not). I mean, those were literally the casting calls. Sounds pretty racist to me.

Every Star Trek series has looked to cast people from specific racial or ethnic backgrounds. Do you think they accidentally ended up with a black Captain in DS9 or a female Captain in Voy? We also know they deliberately sought to balance the genders given how when Bujold dropped out of playing Janeway they were worried about not finding a suitable actress and made it known if they couldn't they drop one of the other male cast and replace them with a woman

I started to listen to one of his podcasts a couple of months back just to see what the fuss was about and listened to maybe the first 20 minutes or so. Maybe it was his first one. Beyond singing Trump's praises I didn't hear anything that smacked of "far right conspiracy" theories.

I mean, what, is he banging the drum loudly about election fraud lately or something? What is it?

I haven't listened to it myself which I admit I probably should if I'm going to comment on it. I've seen it being compared to Alex Jones which is pretty specific.

Originally Posted by Sumac

Those conspiracy types are just a faction of Conservatives, much like SJW is just a faction of a greater Democratic wing.
Most conservatives, AFAIK, don't believe this conspiracy crap.

Not long ago I read something like 93% of Trump voters believe in mass voter fraud and rigged machines in the last election. Considering that Trump has the highest percentage of support among people who identify as Republican that's the vast majority of their supporters that have taken leave of their senses and believe bs conspiracy theories that the election was stolen from Trump.

People see at as a problem, because, times have changed: before introducing character of color or a different sexual orientation, was just that - introducing a character. Rarely creators allowed themselves to be celebrated for the "inclusion" and "diversity". The real strength of the shows was in the story and how those characters have been written.

Nowadays, when non-white character is introduced you tend to hear grandiose speeches on how "progressive this show is" despite the fact that characters of a different skin color or different sexual orientation has appeared in the shows for decades. Worse yet, the shows quite often written with SJW morality in mind ("white people are bad, non-whites are saints"), which supplants good writing for story and characters.

Studios, networks, writers and producers have always made a big deal whenever they've cast a minority or a woman in prominent position that would be taken by a white man again Star Trek has been very guilty of this...and there has always been significant push back. The only difference is that we have the internet and social media now to get the outrage to the masses.

This is why a lot of people, understandably apprehensive, when show goes out of it way to promote non-white character, because, a lot of people suspect (and rightly so), that those characters introduced for the "wrong reason". Not to make story better, but just to have "token representation" (as if we are in the 50s), which usually amount to either underwritten character or a Mary Sue who can do now wrong and reads moral spiels to other characters, even though in-story they are much more qualified to make moral and ethical judgements.

Calling everyone who is disappointed with the way how things are, "bigots" is a very reductive approach, which accomplishes nothing and builds even bigger antagonism among people. I won't argue that some of those people are racists, but when a lot of people, suddenly start complaining about something, with which they had no issues years ago, it is not a bigotry. Or it is some very weird bigotry.

People were ranting about Discovery having a black female lead the moment it was announced and no one had seen a single frame of the show. That to me says that those people either have a problem with woman, black people or both. Also if you just assume that having non straight white male characters means the show is some kind attack on straight white males that's your problem not the shows.

No, reasons to hire only certain actors for certain roles are never valid, unless you talk only about very specific examples.

Not only it goes against the very idea of "acting" its also demotes people to basically functions.

"Oh, you are Black? OK, you gonna play this role of a Black guy, even though nothing in your background and experiences are like that character, but your color of the skin fits so you do fit for this role".

Its probably as much racist as the outright racism, because, it assumes that people share opinions and experiences based on the external factors like skin color or a sexual orientation. Not to mention, it basically pushes us back several decades ago, because it is basically racial, sex and faith profiling. Another totalitarian concept, which welcomed by the left, by the way.

Also, I am not sure why "balance should be improved"? If we talk in proportions most people in US are white, so why movies should be like 50/50 white and black? Are we judging societies by quotas? In what world it is normal?

I think, that ethnicity doesn't matter for the newly created characters. However, when "creators" take old character and changes them purely for the political points, it is ****ed up. It doesn't serves anything, it doesn't make anything better, it's just scores points with few Twitter nutjobs, while confusing and angering everyone else.

So out of curiosity would you be okay with a white person playing a black character with the use of makeup? That may be an extreme example but the principal should generally be the same.

I would argue that while there are exceptions like there are some black people that live a life of privileged and experience little to no direct racism or gay people who never experience homophobia or Jewish people who have never experienced antisemitism and so on most minorities tend to have similar shared life experiences that it is people outside their community would not be able to truly understand. That's what people mean by giving a character an authentic voice. It shouldn't be a hard and fast rule but it is something casting directors should consider.

Also, characters do matter. You can't simply take a character and change everything about them and pretend it is the same character as before (or better, as SJW'd like to tell, when they do they thing).
Characters like words, they have meanings. Change the meaning of the word and it could become better. Or worse. But meaningless change is poisonous. It accomplishes nothing, while confusing people and makes the whole meaning redundant.

As I've said on this thread before very little is ever said when non white characters are white washed. People made a big deal about the Shredder being played William Fichtner but I would imagine that had the rest of the movie (including the possibility that the turtles would be aliens) didn't scream trash I doubt as much would have been made about that. It would definitely have gone ahead had Michael Bay not ordered most of the movie to be reworked for his own personal reasons. There certainly wasn't a shortage of people moaning "what? Can't Shredder be a white guy now". Even that was seen by many as an attack on white people.

The horror, people of all walks of life can be artists and creators.
Must be tough to sleep at night while knowing this.

I think you misunderstand what I was trying to say. In an industry which naturally attracts more liberal people there are still quite a lot of Conservatives. How does that work if Hollywood is secretly only casting Democrats? Obviously that's not the case unless you're outright crazy like Roseanne Barr or James Woods.

[neatoman]

So... Uh... How about the last episode? Was the timeline actually changed to allow Mirror Saru to live? Sounds a bit weird that the emperor Mirror Spock overthrew might be him.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Galactus

Not long ago I read something like 93% of Trump voters believe in mass voter fraud and rigged machines in the last election. Considering that Trump has the highest percentage of support among people who identify as Republican that's the vast majority of their supporters that have taken leave of their senses and believe bs conspiracy theories that the election was stolen from Trump.

And I've heard that 84% of people who drink water, believe that Earth is a triangle-shaped.
If you want to have convincing arguments, you'd better get precise numbers and sources and not "I've heard that 95% of this and so and so". It doesn't make sense neither from logical not from argumentative point of view.

Also, believing in a voter fraud is quite different from believing in chipping and 5G conspiracy ********. Especially, since they are indeed some questions about this election. Which doesn't automatically mean there was a fraud.

Originally Posted by Galactus

Studios, networks, writers and producers have always made a big deal whenever they've cast a minority or a woman in prominent position that would be taken by a white man again Star Trek has been very guilty of this...and there has always been significant push back. The only difference is that we have the internet and social media now to get the outrage to the masses.

Source, please.

If, as you say, "there was a significant pushback everytime", then there should be some traces of them. Like angry publications in newspapers, records about demonstrations and what not.

Originally Posted by Galactus

People were ranting about Discovery having a black female lead the moment it was announced and no one had seen a single frame of the show. That to me says that those people either have a problem with woman, black people or both. Also if you just assume that having non straight white male characters means the show is some kind attack on straight white males that's your problem not the shows.

Maybe, because, it is similar to the situation with Fembusters, where the very idea was compromised from the beginning by an obvious pandering to the neo-left?

Once again it is not to say that there were no racists among haters, but saying only racists / misogynists can be against "this or that" is very reductive and doesn't address the real reason why people suddenly being gung ho about something that was not of a particular importance before.

Also, not about this case in particular, but in general, when most people with white skin are portrayed as villains or cowards, than, yes, I will (naturally) assume it is a racist attack against whites.
It would be the same, if black people in the show were portrayed as lazy and dumb and in this case I'd assume it is intentional attack against blacks.

And racism is a racism. Whether it is "done with a good intentions" (LOL) or creators are just trying to get likes from the neo-left wackos. It doesn't help anyone and doesn't serve as "redemption", because, guilty parties are long dead and "inter-generational collective responsibility" is basically quasi-religious racism with a liberal coat of paint, and de-facto produces more racists and hatred.

Originally Posted by Galactus

So out of curiosity would you be okay with a white person playing a black character with the use of makeup? That may be an extreme example but the principal should generally be the same.

I would argue that while there are exceptions like there are some black people that live a life of privileged and experience little to no direct racism or gay people who never experience homophobia or Jewish people who have never experienced antisemitism and so on most minorities tend to have similar shared life experiences that it is people outside their community would not be able to truly understand. That's what people mean by giving a character an authentic voice. It shouldn't be a hard and fast rule but it is something casting directors should consider.

As for your first question: depends on a context really.
If there was not history of white people mocking blacks by using "black face" it would have been OK, but as it is now, I think, it should not be used. Unless the story demands it, like in Tropic Thunder for example.

Though, I am not really sure what it has to do with anything: AFAIK, we are discussing cases when actors are hired to portray characters, just because of they sexual orientation, race or faith fits, ignoring other factors, like their appearance or acting abilities.

If the story or an author explicitly demands the character to be Black or Asian or White or Gay, then appropriate character should be cast into this role. Preferably an actor who can act best.

If the character is a "blank state", then they can be played by whoever director deems fit for this role. Quite simple really.

As for your second question: sorry, but "shared experience" is absolute ********.
Like, how much shared experience can be between black guy from from Africa (especially countries with Apartheid) and Afro-American? Or gay person from England and gay person from, say Iran, where being Gay is a crime? Like many people experience bullying and harassment, does it mean all of them now inter-changeable?

This argument is really ridiculous and completely discounts all other important factors, like societal climate, education, personal habits and the like.
I was harassed in school, does it mean I can speak for all kids who been harassed throughout the world? I don't think, so, since I had my very own set of circumstances. And it would be arrogant of me to assume that everyone are "like me".

This is exactly what neo-left are doing: they assume that sex, race or sexual orientation are the most important things about the person, completely ignoring personality.

They replace "personality" with all those things, essentially being even more homophobic racist and sexist, than even real bigots, since they should know that this is harmful, but still ignore who the human is, and look only at their skin color and who they sleep with, which is exactly what anti-racists and anti-homophobes and all sane people were fighting against. They believe that mere being black or gay is enough for the person to speak for everyone who has the same skin color or sexual orientation, which is ridiculous.

In general, I am against idea, that one person should speak for many, as if they sharing absolutely the same experience. Everyone should speak for themselves, this is the only way to understand everyone.

Originally Posted by Galactus

As I've said on this thread before very little is ever said when non white characters are white washed. People made a big deal about the Shredder being played William Fichtner but I would imagine that had the rest of the movie (including the possibility that the turtles would be aliens) didn't scream trash I doubt as much would have been made about that. It would definitely have gone ahead had Michael Bay not ordered most of the movie to be reworked for his own personal reasons. There certainly wasn't a shortage of people moaning "what? Can't Shredder be a white guy now". Even that was seen by many as an attack on white people.

So? People who supported turning Shredder into some white military commander are dumb. People who supported any of the changes Bay did to the TMNT are dumb in general.
This precisely covers small percentage of real racists and idiots existing everywhere in the fandom.

Originally Posted by Galactus

I think you misunderstand what I was trying to say. In an industry which naturally attracts more liberal people there are still quite a lot of Conservatives. How does that work if Hollywood is secretly only casting Democrats? Obviously that's not the case unless you're outright crazy like Roseanne Barr or James Woods.

Hollywood is run by hypocrisy. Most of them are "progressive", because, it is fashionable at the moment. If somehow people will become more conservative, most of Hollywood elites will change their tune in an instant.

It's like in Russia a lot of politicians (even Communists, lol) proclaim themselves to be Christians, but in reality most of them were fervent Atheists, while USSR was around.

[Andrew NDB]

I honestly don't even think I can bring myself to watch (let alone even bother to pirate) the newest episode of STD. Apparently the cause of the Burn is revealed, and it's just some random alien that got super emotional and blew up all of the dilithium in the galaxy because of some kind of Force-like emotional outburst? And then sent an encrypted distress signal? That doesn't even make sense. And apparently Saru lets Tilly be captain because he decides it might help her emotional state?

I just... I can't.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I honestly don't even think I can bring myself to watch (let alone even bother to pirate) the newest episode of STD. Apparently the cause of the Burn is revealed, and it's just some random alien that got super emotional and blew up all of the dilithium in the galaxy because of some kind of Force-like emotional outburst? And then sent an encrypted distress signal? That doesn't even make sense. And apparently Saru lets Tilly be captain because he decides it might help her emotional state?

I just... I can't.

I read an article about it with an animated GIF clip of the episode.
LMFAO!
Alien guy screams and destroys dilithium with some omnidirectional energy wave from his vocal chords.

[Jester]

I mean, I was watching while my wife was wrapping gifts so I wasn't paying 100% attention so I must have missed the Kelpian kid sonic booming all the dilithium...but I do remember joking with her about Michael Burnham having to be the one to make sure Saru doesn't get in over his head.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Jester

I must have missed the Kelpian kid sonic booming all the dilithium.

You missed they key, critical scene of the entire season, yet still described it as a "sonic booming"? Weird.

Originally Posted by Jester

IMichael Burnham having to be the one to make sure Saru doesn't get in over his head.

Hm... I dunno about that in the episode.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by IMJ

You missed they key, critical scene of the entire season, yet still described it as a "sonic booming"? Weird.

https://i.imgur.com/VQUxcPH.gif

I was going by your description. "omnidirectional energy wave from his vocal chords" = SONIC BOOM!

Hm... I dunno about that in the episode.

I swear Dr. Culver practically said she had to go on the away mission...but again not giving it my whole attention.

EDIT: It was Book not Dr. Culver.

[neatoman]

Hey, who is up for Captain Tilly next season?!

... Yeah, I get that it's sort of this show's thing to have a different captain every season but I really don't like the idea of the ensign getting promoted to captain just because the actual captain chose to make her number 1, seems wrong.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Jester

I was going by your description. "omnidirectional energy wave from his vocal chords" = SONIC BOOM!




I swear Dr. Culver practically said she had to go on the away mission...but again not giving it my whole attention.

EDIT: It was Book not Dr. Culver.

So far I've only seen the first Ep of the new season. But everything I read indicates that Burnham is melodramatically painted as "the bestest Star Fleet eva!" and if it's not her then it's all sorts of dialog and crew glancing on camera in support of any other propped up crew member as "empowerment support".

-shrugs-

I dunno, I'll watch it at some point I'm sure.

[Andrew NDB]

Good grief, saw the new one today. So many things borrowed from Star Wars Episode IV and Die Hard. And Burnham crying twice again.