Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[CriticalGaming]

There's something kind of weird about nuclear. I mean, not the technology itself, but people's attitude to it. I think it's that sort of whiff of futuristic awesomeness it's managed to hold onto (even if it's many decades old) some people love, plus an element of "This will show I care about the climate but also fuck the green lobby LOL". I'm not particularly against nuclear by any means, it's just I cannot help but feel it's messy and expensive whilst more practical alternatives already exist.

One thing about the expense as well is that the more a technology gets adapted the cheaper that tech becomes because there is more motivation the iterate upon it. Computers were insanely expensive at the beginning, now are cheaper and more power efficiant than ever before.

Who's to say that these big expensive nuclear power plants don't start getting cheaper, smaller, more effective, more renewable, easier to dispose of wastes, etc etc as more adaptation of the tech gets more and more widespread.

The same thing can be said about solar and wind, but it cannot be said about batteries. We've had batteries for a long fucking time and we still don't know what the fuck to do with them when they've expired. And relying on batteries as a tech that has barely evolved since the 80's while the rest of the technological world has evolved around them. I don't know why we've not figured out better ways to make batteries and better ways to dispose of them, but it's a lot like the same problem we have with nuclear waste, except properly used and recycled nuclear waste would yield far less volume than the yearly use of batteries.

 

[Agema]

Who's to say that these big expensive nuclear power plants don't start getting cheaper, smaller, more effective, more renewable, easier to dispose of wastes, etc etc as more adaptation of the tech gets more and more widespread.

Not likely. The big advances in (cost) efficiency tend to be when technology is new, but nuclear fission is already a mature technology. We cannot realistically expect major improvement without a breakthrough that as far as I am aware doesn't appear on any visible horizon.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Not likely. The big advances in (cost) efficiency tend to be when technology is new, but nuclear fission is already a mature technology. We cannot realistically expect major improvement without a breakthrough that as far as I am aware doesn't appear on any visible horizon.

I'd argue that car tech isn't new, but we just had a big advancement in these fully electric cars. Late advancements can happen when motivation is there for it.

It's all heresay anyway because it's not happening anytime soon so all we can do is speculate.

 

[Hawki]

The first episode of NuWho is top 5 worst episodes of NuWhu. So is Aliens in London.

What?

Aliens in London is a flawed episode, but in no universe does it count under top 5 worst episodes? Flux alone would cover a top five worst (I say top 5 because the Weeping Angels episode there is actually decent), but even if you counted that as all one episode? No. Just no.

And what's wrong with Rose (the episode)? I've never seen anyone have a problem with that.

Davis had some great episode. And some truly awful one

As opposed to Chibnall having awful episodes and at best, average ones?

Edit: Oh shit, remember Rose's family. The mum, the dad, the Mikey. All terrible.They make the Whittaker Three look well written.

Completely disagree. Also, even if that was the case, it's a false equivalence. Sans Mickey (who's a companion for only a handful of episodes), you're comparing supporting characters with core characters. I'd expect companions to be better written than tertiary characters, and Chibnall can't even manage that.

The best part is Mickey fucking off and becoming.... well cool is a strong word. Cool for the early Nuwho years

There's many reasons I could cite as watching DW. "Cool" isn't really among them.

Mickey "fucking off" as you put it doesn't add to his character, IMO. He's fine at the end of season 2, sort of...at the least, there's a chain you can follow from the cybermen double episode to the finale. However, then you cut to him at the end of Tennant's run, where he apparently married Martha (because...reasons), and is in a run-and-gun battle with a sontaran because...reasons. But if I had to look at Mickey's arc, it's an arc where he's much better towards the start of it than the end.[/QUOTE]

Compelling or not it was pushed fairly heavily on that angle.

And yet you can't actually cite an article.

I mean, here's a trailer for Vagrant Queen.


Count how many seconds it spends on Alita and Amae's thing if you want, but I'll save you time, and specify that in a trailer 104 seconds long, it spends about 2-3 seconds on it.

My Source of Chibnall thinking it is the number of times the pattern has repeated in many other bits of media and the same cycle has played out from America Chavez to the Charmed Reboot seemingly where they don't try to develop the characters as characters in their own right and any objection gets met with cries that anyone objecting is just a Nazi.

So not a source at all, just a claim that because something else happens in X, it must be the case of Y.

I can't comment on the Charmed reboot, so maybe they did that. As for America Chavez...what, the character that caused Multiverse of Madness to be censored in Saudi Arabia due to LGBT content? Y'know, I detest wokeism as much as the next person, but I'd have thought THAT would be the bigger issue here.

But even all that aside, don't you see the double standard of your own that's being applied? For instance, let's say that, for instance, I agree with Trunkage that Pete and Jackie Tyler are poorly written. Let's also reiterate that I think that Graham, Ryan, and Yasmine are also poorly written, and narrow it down to Ryan and Yasmine. So in this scenario:

Jackie & Pete: Poorly written characters.

Yaz & Ryan: Chibnall is forcing an SJW agenda because these characters are poorly written

If we want to talk about patterns being repeated, the one I see is that if minorities are poorly written, it's evidence of some kind of 'agenda,' and not, y'know, just poor writing. If you want an example of this, take Rose Tico from Last Jedi. Now, Rose has never been one of my favourite characters, but the argument being made wasn't "hey, this character isn't that great," it was the idea that Johnson had employed "forced diversity" that put Rose in. Because if any POC is in a work of fiction and isn't written well, it HAS to be due to some kind of agenda. It can't be, y'know, just down to the writing itself. The same thing happened with Michael Burnham on Star Trek. No, I don't like Burnham much as a character, no, I don't like Discovery much, but to all the SQWs out there, you could change Burnham into some blonde, blue eyed Aryan, and that WOULDN"T CHANGE ANYTHING.

It irritates me on two levels because first, I can see the double standard, and two, it means that if I ever criticize any of these characters, I have to be wary that people might cast me into the bad faith crowd. And yes, sometimes, creators do that, but honestly, 'fans' do it a lot more. There's a reason why the term "Fandom Menace" exists in the Star Wars fandom, this being the same crowd that bullied Jake Floyd, nearly drove Ahmed Best to suicide, and Kelly Marie Tran off social media.

 

[Breakdown]

I mean, all of these franchises clearly have an agenda behind them. The writers don't even hide it any more. Take the Wheel of Time as an example. Every publicity article I read about the Wheel of TIme pushed the series as a feminist fantasy series. It was so bad that the Guardian ended up doing an article pointing out that the books aren't actually all that feminist.

You get bad writing when you put politics ahead of plot and positive representation ahead of interesting characters.

 

[CriticalGaming]

I mean, all of these franchises clearly have an agenda behind them. The writers don't even hide it any more. Take the Wheel of Time as an example. Every publicity article I read about the Wheel of TIme pushed the series as a feminist fantasy series. It was so bad that the Guardian ended up doing an article pointing out that the books aren't actually all that feminist.

You get bad writing when you put politics ahead of plot and positive representation ahead of interesting characters.

What's funny about this is that the Wheel of Time novels have a lot of very powerful female characters, both good and evil. They really didn't need to push any agenda of "girl power" because the books themselves are already like that.

 

[MrCalavera]

What's funny about this is that the Wheel of Time novels have a lot of very powerful female characters, both good and evil. They really didn't need to push any agenda of "girl power" because the books themselves are already like that.

So... They're quite feminist, and the marketing angle wasn't wrong?

 

[CriticalGaming]

So... They're quite feminist, and the marketing angle wasn't wrong?

Not feminist, because feminist tends to down play the male characters or make them look like morons. Which isn't the case. The male characters are definitely still important and the series does revolve around a single male character.

What they've done with the show, is fucked all that to make the womyn the most important aspect of the show and that's not the case. I'd say the books themselves are actually fairly well equal and, if anything, are proof that diversity comes hand-in-hand with good writting.

You don't need to have some SJW agenda when making a story, you just need to make a good storywith interesting characters. Because interesting characters are diverse by nature.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Not feminist, because feminist tends to down play the male characters or make them look like morons. Which isn't the case. The male characters are definitely still important and the series does revolve around a single male character.

What they've done with the show, is fucked all that to make the womyn the most important aspect of the show and that's not the case. I'd say the books themselves are actually fairly well equal and, if anything, are proof that diversity comes hand-in-hand with good writting.

You don't need to have some SJW agenda when making a story, you just need to make a good storywith interesting characters. Because interesting characters are diverse by nature.

So, feminist just means when it's bad then

 

[CriticalGaming]

So, feminist just means when it's bad then

yes by definition generally.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Not feminist, because feminist tends to down play the male characters or make them look like morons.

Examples of that would be what?

Let's say though for arguments sake that you're correct - that would still mean that feminism is playing catch-up to most male protagonists. Certainly when it comes to the action genre.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Examples of that would be what?

The new star wars trilogy.

Let's say though for arguments sake that you're correct - that would still mean that feminism is playing catch-up to most male protagonists. Certainly when it comes to the action genre.

Catch up with what? What do you even mean by this?

This is the problem with the new age feminist mindset, they equate that is a female character isn't the fucking star then it's somehow a slight that makes any female that exists in that film insignificant. Their behavior and viewpoints demean the very women they are trying to up lift, because their mentality is stupid.

In what manner does feminism need to catch up with male protagonists? So what we need to go back in history and count the number of male led films versus female led films and then make films that feature star's of a given sex under exactly 1-to-1 ratios of female's have lead in film? Is that what you're saying? Because there is no other way you can apply "Catch-up" as a valid term.

Female's lead films all the fucking time, and in films where the man is the lead there are still plenty of films in which the female characters are badasses. I need only point you at the Fast and Furious films to prove that point.

It's a totally irrelevant argument that doesn't hold up to any scrutiny unless you apply an exceptionally literal application to it. AS there have been 75,874 films staring men and only 56,198 films staring women, therefore film product should only focus on female driven films until an additional 19,676 female driven films have been made to make the movie count equal.

 

[thebobmaster]

Interesting. It seems that, BY DEFINITION, feminism has nothing to do with demanding that men be subjugated and women be treated better.




fem·i·nism
/ˈfeməˌnizəm/
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS829US829&sxsrf=APq-WBuBqfoim4X97KwIP17wxria0MwgFA:1651088513919&q=how+to+pronounce+feminism&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRoxS3w8sc9YSnDSWtOXmPU5uINKMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLhYglJLcoV4pHi4uJIS83NzMsszrViUWJKzeNZxCqZkV-uUJKvUADUkw_UlKoAUwIAQyF-lFsAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=us&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDq_WCgLX3AhUjJUQIHYCSAAMQ3eEDegQIFBAK

noun

1. the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.
   
   
   

 

[Breakdown]

So... They're quite feminist, and the marketing angle wasn't wrong?

Nobody reads the Wheel of Time books for the female characters. Unless you like braid tugging and incessant bickering.

 

[CriticalGaming]

the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.

Equal rights doesn't mean equal representation. Hmm....goood to know.

 

[thebobmaster]

I'm sorry. When I read stuff like "This is the problem with the new age feminist mindset, they equate that is a female character isn't the fucking star then it's somehow a slight that makes any female that exists in that film insignificant. Their behavior and viewpoints demean the very women they are trying to up lift, because their mentality is stupid. " or "Not feminist, because feminist tends to down play the male characters or make them look like morons. Which isn't the case. The male characters are definitely still important and the series does revolve around a single male character."

I assume that the person believes all feminists are of that mindset, that feminism NEEDS to put women above men.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

yes by definition generally.

Guys, I don't think trying to change Critical's mind is gonna work. Can't reason somebody our of a position he didn't reason himself in to

 

[CriticalGaming]

I assume that the person believes all feminists are of that mindset, that feminism NEEDS to put women above men.

This #notallfeminist is basically the same thing as #notallmen imo.

It's obviously not all feminists, but it does seem to be all the people in charge of these Woke-shows and movies. As well as some of the most publicly shared shit on social media. So when the exposure paints this really loony picture to people, that's the picture that they are going to have, regardless if there are "good ones" too.

 

[Trunkage]

Nobody reads the Wheel of Time books for the female characters. Unless you like braid tugging and incessant bickering.

I would disagree. Egwene becomes very interesting when she attains a certain Seat and then has a extended stay at the Tower.

The braid tugging and bickering were obnoxious

 

[Casual Shinji]

The new star wars trilogy.

What about the prequel trilogy? Isn't there, like, one woman in that whole thing, and she gets to cry and be pregnant? I mean, if the new trilogy is an example of male characters getting downplayed for the sake of female characters, would the prequel trilogy not be an example of the exact opposite?

Not that I'm making any claims that either trilogy is good, but throughout all the hate the prequels got the complaint of it having male characters downplay female characters is not one of them. Or atleast not one that came from the direction of people who think feminism in movies is bad.

Catch up with what? What do you even mean by this?

This is the problem with the new age feminist mindset, they equate that is a female character isn't the fucking star then it's somehow a slight that makes any female that exists in that film insignificant. Their behavior and viewpoints demean the very women they are trying to up lift, because their mentality is stupid.

In what manner does feminism need to catch up with male protagonists? So what we need to go back in history and count the number of male led films versus female led films and then make films that feature star's of a given sex under exactly 1-to-1 ratios of female's have lead in film? Is that what you're saying? Because there is no other way you can apply "Catch-up" as a valid term.

Female's lead films all the fucking time, and in films where the man is the lead there are still plenty of films in which the female characters are badasses. I need only point you at the Fast and Furious films to prove that point.

It's a totally irrelevant argument that doesn't hold up to any scrutiny unless you apply an exceptionally literal application to it. AS there have been 75,874 films staring men and only 56,198 films staring women, therefore film product should only focus on female driven films until an additional 19,676 female driven films have been made to make the movie count equal.

I'm simply stating that your claim of feminism downplaying male characters or making them look like morons is actually the inverse of what's been happening in most movies for decades. And if this definition of feminism was correct, which it isn't, BUT that even if it was (which it isn't) it would still just be playing catch-up to all the male lead movies with female love interests.