Can I talk about this modern trend in "diversity casting in TV shows?"

[hanselthecaretaker]

Yes, it was indeed Bubba Ho-Tep.

What makes it work is Ossie’ character only thinking he’s JFK, and Bruce accepting he’ll never convince him otherwise because “JFK” is also the only one who believes he’s the real Elvis.
For more irony, Ossie and the real JFK were actually born the same year.

 

[Kyrian007]

What makes it work is Ossie’ character only thinking he’s JFK, and Bruce accepting he’ll never convince him otherwise because “JFK” is also the only one who believes he’s the real Elvis.
For more irony, Ossie and the real JFK were actually born the same year.

Or... was he the real JFK? I loved how that one scene had that very brief shot where Elvis kind of "doubletakes" after seeing the huge scarring on the back of Jack's head and neck.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

That's got nothing to do with weird

That's just head canon.

You're pretending hobbits based on you own life.

You made it up what they should do based SOLELY on your own lived experience

Then pretended everyone else should think that way

Maybe you and Hawki can stop with your identity politics nonsense - please and thank you. I don't need every fastasy race or creature to be an exact copy of what I see as humans just because I'm desperate for some representation.... that I can find elsewhere in the books/movies

No it's based on prior works in the same canon because these days the changes get made but the show runners often don't have the guts to say "Oh this is a different timeline" lest people ignore it and stop watching seeing it as not mattering. So in media now we get the equivalent of hobbits reproducing like humans for years then suddenly some author decides it's all being some big secret and Hobbits actually are all gay and reproduce asexually and anyone who disagrees is just a bigot whom the franchise isn't for anymore, unless people actually stop watching in which case you're then a bigot ruining the franchise for everyone else but not watching it so it can continue along the new direction thus you're a bad ally and also evil.

It's also never some new fantasy race called the Drachera or something it happens with it's always established properties.

Real example of such a change. The Emperor didn't make the Primarchs (basically the originators of the space marines) in 40K now. Instead some-one else made them and the emperor just claimed credit for them.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Didn't actually happen, though.

I already showed it did. Did you miss it or just ignore it as it's inconvenient to this line of argument?

Maybe check back a few pages and get your facts right next time. Oh and this is me taking this is good faith you made a error before you start getting tetchy over it. Feel free to add more evidence to the bad faith pile though please.

Also, we've kind of moved away from the whole hypocrisy of decrying "weaponisation" one minute and then gleefully weaponising stuff the next. You whined that I was making it up, then I provided direct quotes, and now you've just shifted onto defending why its OK for you to weaponise in this case.

Yeh it's clear to me you either don't get what I said or don't give a shit.

I've explained it to you already, try reading it again or go over to the corner with your strawman and carry on this argument because I see little point trying to defend a position I haven't take or re-explain my position to some-one apparently either unwilling or unable to read and comprehend what was written.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

"Without any evidence"? Zeldin's own campaign chair charged the assailant, and then Zeldin used the undercharging to smear his rival. That literally happened. The chain of events isn't in dispute.

Then you brought up an unrelated case, which nobody had mentioned until then in this thread, to smear opponents. Which would be the 'weaponisation' you're so very principled about.

Yet the bit in dispute is that it was all a deliberate set up. Which so far no evidence exists either way.

Lol, there's something really cute about accusing strangers of employing psychological and emotional abuse tactics because they disagreed on the internet.

Yeh well maybe stop trying to do it so obviously and incompletely. You've already adamantly claimed I've said and taken position I haven't and your evidence of me allegedly saying it shows me saying something different. I've attempted to make my position clear to you once and you ignored it and instead keep insisting I said and meant something different. That is gaslighting. So kindly stop getting pissy over being called out for what you are doing either intentionally or through a combination of your own issues causing you to do it purely by accident.

 

[Silvanus]

I already showed it did.

No, you provided zero evidence that people kept insisting on Smollett's innocent after evidence of the hoax emerged.

Yeh it's clear to me you either don't get what I said or don't give a shit.

I've explained it to you already, try reading it again or go over to the corner with your strawman and carry on this argument because I see little point trying to defend a position I haven't take or re-explain my position to some-one apparently either unwilling or unable to read and comprehend what was written.

The correct answer is "don't give a shit". Which is true: I don't give a shit about whatever justifications you can come out with for why it's fine for you to weaponise things. I'm not interested in why you feel justified doing it. I'm interested solely in the hilarious hypocrisy of saying wepaonisation is bad and then immediately doing it.

 

[Silvanus]

Yeh well maybe stop trying to do it so obviously and incompletely.

So to be clear: you believe I'm emotionally abusing you? That's really an accusation you're going to stick with, because I disagreed with you on a video game forum?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

No, you provided zero evidence that people kept insisting on Smollett's innocent after evidence of the hoax emerged.

Points to the fact at least one of not more of the sources were from around the time there was doubt.........

The correct answer is "don't give a shit". Which is true: I don't give a shit about whatever justifications you can come out with for why it's fine for you to weaponise things. I'm not interested in why you feel justified doing it. I'm interested solely in the hilarious hypocrisy of saying wepaonisation is bad and then immediately doing it.

Then why should I bother with you?
You don't give enough of a shit not to lie, misconstrue or apparently even spend the 30 second to a minute to process and comprehend what is being said to you. And you're telling me it's not weird and cultish that you feel fine acting like that with no critical thinking or introspection going on?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So to be clear: you believe I'm emotionally abusing you? That's really an accusation you're going to stick with, because I disagreed with you on a video game forum?

The attitude and approach you have taken is such yes it could happily be categorised as such.

In before the performative outrage and acting all offended because some-one called your bullshit out for what it is

 

[BrawlMan]

Once again it's back to the usual act like a victim and moving goal post tactics. In other news, water is wet. More tonight at 6:00 p.m!

 

[Trunkage]

No it's based on prior works in the same canon because these days the changes get made but the show runners often don't have the guts to say "Oh this is a different timeline" lest people ignore it and stop watching seeing it as not mattering. So in media now we get the equivalent of hobbits reproducing like humans for years then suddenly some author decides it's all being some big secret and Hobbits actually are all gay and reproduce asexually and anyone who disagrees is just a bigot whom the franchise isn't for anymore, unless people actually stop watching in which case you're then a bigot ruining the franchise for everyone else but not watching it so it can continue along the new direction thus you're a bad ally and also evil.

It's also never some new fantasy race called the Drachera or something it happens with it's always established properties.

Real example of such a change. The Emperor didn't make the Primarchs (basically the originators of the space marines) in 40K now. Instead some-one else made them and the emperor just claimed credit for them.

I have absolutely no problem with Erda etc making the Primarches. They have made the Emperor a mess lore wise over the last 4 decades. There is so much stuff that was contradictory. Making it multiple people doing infighting makes more sense

I legit could not care if an author comes out with changes to a story. Tolkien changed the Hobbit to fit LotR. There was never a One Ring. He rewrote what Frodo found to fit the narrative he wanted to write later. The BEST part of Star Trek TNG is it not really giving much of a shit about TOS and writing the story they wanted to tell first, then fit the old lore in if they could. It's THE biggest problem I have nuTrek - being so worried about old lore, it ruins the story

I'd go as far as saying I think it's incredibly stupid to care about changes. I also don't care about your rule of 'it has to be a new fanatasy race.' It's never been that way. Eg. Look at all the races of 40k. They're have their lore changed all the time to fit whatever the authors want. This 'has to be a new race' nonsense is a you thing, not an actual real life thing. I've never had that expectation.

If you hate something just because it has gay in it, it makes you a bigot. If you just dont like the change... like who cares if you dont like it. You can choose to like something or not. It's up to you.

 

[Hawki]

If every hobbit was gay and reproduced asexually it would change precisely nothing in the story, as there were no hobbit sex scenes or romances. It would only be note worthy as a self reporting mechanic for personal hangs up.

That's false, of the three hobbits, three of them are married, with Rose playing into Sam's arc.

You could replace "Rosie" with "Ritchie," I suppose, or recontextualize it (why they'd marry is something that would have to be explained).

Does this mean that Hobbits are 40K Orks?

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

Wait, are the Orks gay or do they just reproduce Asexually via spores? Do I even want to find out?

Orks reproduce asexually via spores. They release them steadily over their lives, and replace them in a burst at the point of death.

I suppose orks could bang each other when they're not, um, banging each other, and it wouldn't break anything, but you wouldn't get any snotlings as a result.

I legit could not care if an author comes out with changes to a story. Tolkien changed the Hobbit to fit LotR. There was never a One Ring. He rewrote what Frodo found to fit the narrative he wanted to write later.

I assume you mean Bilbo rather than Frodo there, but that's a false equivalance. That the ring in The Hobbit is the One Ring is retroactive, but it's not a retcon. There's nothing in Lord of the Rings that fundamentally changes The Hobbit or retcons it.

The BEST part of Star Trek TNG is it not really giving much of a shit about TOS and writing the story they wanted to tell first, then fit the old lore in if they could. It's THE biggest problem I have nuTrek - being so worried about old lore, it ruins the story

What?

If by NuTrek you mean everything from 2009 onwards, I have no idea how you could claim that, since NuTrek has repeatedly thrown canon to the wayside. There's a reason why so many old Star Trek fans despise NuTrek, and while I'm not among them, it's easy to see why. The Kelvinverse changed things left, right, and centre, and Discovery just doesn't fit with the era it was originally sent in, to the point that it was sent into the far future so that canon couldn't be messed up further. Lower Decks, as much as I like it, feels even more distant, since hardly anything feels congruent. The closest to canon NuTrek has come, as far as I can tell, is Strange New Worlds, and shock of all shocks, it's probably the most popular NuTrek series out there.

I'd go as far as saying I think it's incredibly stupid to care about changes. I also don't care about your rule of 'it has to be a new fanatasy race.' It's never been that way. Eg. Look at all the races of 40k. They're have their lore changed all the time to fit whatever the authors want.

Yes, and it sucks when that happens. What's your point?

The necrons are probably the worst example I can think of, but there's other examples. You can add/recontextualize new lore easily (e.g. the eldar calling themselves aeldari now doesn't break anything given the lore behind it), you can do it stupidly (e.g. the necrons), or you can do it in such a way that headcanon can provide reasonable justification (e.g. the tau).

 

[Trunkage]

I know this is directed at dwarf, but it's the closest Trunkage ever got to answering, so:

Well, here's your problem. You've just got an opinion. Whether I agree with it or not, I'm going to respect it. You can have it or not and it's highly unlikely I'm going to change it

You're the victim of culture wars. You don't get the attention because your opinions don't hurt people that much. There is more important things going on

It's...head canon that hobbits aren't all gay?

It absolutely is head canon. There is nothing wrong with head cannon. At least until you do thies...

How is dwarf doing that?

There isn't a person here that can claimed "lived experience" with hobbits. The entire point of the hobbits (or at least part of it) is that they represent an idealized rural past (and by extension, the Shire). FFS, there isn't a single element in Middle-earth, period, that anyone can claimed "lived experience" with. The closest you could claim "lived experience" with Lord of the Rings is if you treat it as an analogy for WWI, and unless anyone's here approaching 120, I doubt anyone has "lived experience" with that either.

DH is pretending that hobbits, a different species, has to act like humans because he wants them that way. The ONLY reason you demand that the sexuality of hobbits has to be straight is because that how its always been for you. I'd say the same thing about Peter Jackson if he was saying, 'No, they have to sexuality like humans.' Not because I want hobbits to be straight or gay or asexual, but because he would be demanding how I interpret the situation

If the next director for the reboot, (because of course there will be reboot some day) says they' procreate 40K Ork style, I'm not going to demand they change it

All this stuff about idealized rural past doesn't matter because we were talking about sexuality. When I was talking about 'lived experience' I was specifically talking about DH understanding of sexuality because.... that's what we were talking about.

Oh please, you've been forcing identity politics here since the outset.

Asking for something else is not forcing anything. It's asking
The problem comes when people, you just want straight stuff and nothing else, demands everything needs to be straight and then has the nerve to say that everyone else acts like them

Play identity politics if you want, at least cut out the gaslighting.

Here is a definition of gaslight:
'manipulate (someone) by psychological means into doubting their own sanity'
Identity politics has been around for centuries. Look at the founding fathers. THAT'S identity politics. So is Trump, DeSantis, Biden and Clinton
You're not excluded from Identity politics just because you do the white male thing only

Jesus fucking Christ on a fucking pogo stick...

First, where did anyone, anywhere, in this thread, say that hobbits (or any fantasy race) are (or need to be) an exact copy of what we see in the real world? There isn't a single fantasy race or culture that's going to be a 1:1 representation of anything in the real world, and if there is, it's debatable whether the author is writing fantasy at that point. Yes, the hobbits have clear real-world inspirations, as do most of the races of Middle-earth, that's not the same thing as an "exact copy."

Jesus fucking Christ on a fucking pogo stick...

Yes, you did all of that. From the first post. You could have had your opinions of how things should go and that would have been fine. But you decided everyone needed to follow your interpretation of GoT. Please stop

Second, you're actually right, a fantasy race doesn't "need" to be a copy of humans (not that I saw anyone claim they were). A fictional race doesn't "need" to be anything, since if you're building one from the ground up, you can ultimately choose the rules you want to follow. Since your earlier schtick was making an all-gay race, you can absolutely do that in fantasy or sci-fi, and people wouldn't batt an eye, providing the worldbuilding was sound enough. But I've already explained why making the hobbits gay is iffy from an adaptational and mechanical standpoint. Altering a pre-existing fantasy race/culture is different from creating one, and people tend to notice, examples ranging from the Fire Nation in the Last Airbender (Japanese to Indian) or the urgals in Eragon (who are no longer urgals but humans, presumably because of budget).

Just because you find something iffy, doesn't mean that I have

Third, if you actually respond to any of this, at least make it a good one, because I'm this close to just setting you to ignore.

Here, I'll save you the trouble

All those points about lore and female space marine that you written out 3 times to me has not convinced me that 40K must ban female space marines. They are not convincing. You don't realise that can just write MORE LORE that says something new. I know this won't make any sense to you, but you are only doing male space marine because that's what you want. The lore justification are just made up stuff. You can just make up new stuff

The original justification of Sister of Battle was some of the most cringy, woke ass, illogical bullshit that was made up on the spot to sell products. That's fine because NOW they've created some incredible lore that goes beyond its initial stupidity

Ignore me, or don't. I don't mind. Demanding everyone needs to follow whatever laws you made up around lore is just forcing your ideals on people. They aren't written down, and I'm not interested in buy into those laws and I'm tried of having to follow them

 

[Trunkage]

I assume you mean Bilbo rather than Frodo there, but that's a false equivalance. That the ring in The Hobbit is the One Ring is retroactive, but it's not a retcon. There's nothing in Lord of the Rings that fundamentally changes The Hobbit or retcons it.

Yes, sorry, Bilbo

What do you think retcon stands for?

What?

If by NuTrek you mean everything from 2009 onwards, I have no idea how you could claim that, since NuTrek has repeatedly thrown canon to the wayside. There's a reason why so many old Star Trek fans despise NuTrek, and while I'm not among them, it's easy to see why. The Kelvinverse changed things left, right, and centre, and Discovery just doesn't fit with the era it was originally sent in, to the point that it was sent into the far future so that canon couldn't be messed up further. Lower Decks, as much as I like it, feels even more distant, since hardly anything feels congruent. The closest to canon NuTrek has come, as far as I can tell, is Strange New Worlds, and shock of all shocks, it's probably the most popular NuTrek series out there.

Like how the Klingons were retconned from being the villains to be allies in TNG because it fit the narrative they wanted to tell? Or a lot of things about Klingons?

Now what I mean by not caring about TOS is things like Klingons, Romulans and Vulcans aren't really in the first few seasons of TNG. Nor did they follow the format, somehow needing the captain to go on away mission, a move away from swashbuckling adventure to more thinky episodes and focussed on the ensemble instead of the 'big 3'

Yes, and it sucks when that happens. What's your point?

The necrons are probably the worst example I can think of, but there's other examples. You can add/recontextualize new lore easily (e.g. the eldar calling themselves aeldari now doesn't break anything given the lore behind it), you can do it stupidly (e.g. the necrons), or you can do it in such a way that headcanon can provide reasonable justification (e.g. the tau).

Story comes first. Then the lore

 

[Gordon_4]

Like how the Klingons were retconned from being the villains to be allies in TNG because

of Star Trek VI: the Undiscovered Country, the least subtle movie about the fall of the Berlin Wall, Chernobyl (the explosion of Praxis) and Gorbachev (Gorkon) opening dialogue with the West (The Federation) ever put to film. And even then, Khitomer Accords were more like a trade and non-aggression treaty. It took the Enterprise C's valiant defence of Narendra 3 against three Romulan Warbirds to shift the Klingons from not hostile to allies.

And that's not a retcon, that's progress and progress in line with Star Trek's core values.

 

[Hawki]

You're the victim of culture wars. You don't get the attention because your opinions don't hurt people that much.

I'm not the victim of culture wars, I doubt there's a person here that's a "victim." Calling me, or anyone else, a "victim" of culture wars is an insult to actual victims (and actual wars).

And given the end of your post, you're the one whining about being a victim, so spare us the crocodile tears.

There is more important things going on

Yes, and? You're here, aren't you?

It absolutely is head canon. There is nothing wrong with head cannon.

It's...head canon...that an entire species isn't gay...when said species is shown to marry entirely based on opposite sex, which gives birth after coitus, and are an evolutionary branch of a species that those same words apply to?

You know what, fine. By your logic, I could just as easily claim that there's a spaceship built by hobbits beneath the Shire that they've all agreed not to talk about, and claim that it's valid because of the lack of any direct line saying that there isn't a spaceship beneath the Shire, and ignore anyone saying that doesn't make sense based on the lore based on "head canon."

DH is pretending that hobbits, a different species, has to act like humans because he wants them that way.

Where?

No-one is pretending that hobbits are acting like anything, we know how hobbits are written, what their culture is, how their biology functions, what their ancestry is, etc.

For goodness sake, you understand that your argument essentially rests on the premise that any portrayal of anything in any work is ultimately subjective, and therefore, taking that work as presented is only "pretending" that a set of facts exist. For instance, it's outright stated that elves are immortal. By your logic, if I say elves are immortal, you could say that I'm only pretending elves are immortal, despite the text saying one thing and the lack of any evidence to the contrary.

The ONLY reason you demand that the sexuality of hobbits has to be straight is because that how its always been for you.

What?

First, I haven't "demanded" anything, I've simply presented the facts. Second, you've jumped from "all hobbits are gay" (which they aren't) to "all hobbits are straight" (which is unlikely). If someone came along and started crying foul at a gay hobbit in Rings of Power for instance, I'd tell them to shove it, because, among other things, there's nothing that prohibits that.

Third, "how it's always been for me." First, it's not "how it's always been for me," the text was written before I was born (probably before most of us were born). If you want to claim that hobbits are all gay...well, I've already pointed out how that assertion is spurious, but you understand that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, right? That usually one has to prove a positive rather than a negative?

 

[Hawki]

I'd say the same thing about Peter Jackson if he was saying, 'No, they have to sexuality like humans.' Not because I want hobbits to be straight or gay or asexual, but because he would be demanding how I interpret the situation

Interpret what?

We know how hobbit biology and society operates. I'm not sure what there is to "interpret." There's absolutely things in fiction that is left to the reader's interpretation (whether balrogs actually have wings is one example), but if you're seriously going to put that down to interpretation, and presumably keep the same standard, there's not much that wouldn't be.

If the next director for the reboot, (because of course there will be reboot some day) says they' procreate 40K Ork style, I'm not going to demand they change it

And now you've shifted to reboots.

Fine, sure, if people want to adapt Lord of the Rings, and make that the case, well, fine, if that's what they want to do. That's a different claim from the one you've been making.

All this stuff about idealized rural past doesn't matter because we were talking about sexuality. When I was talking about 'lived experience' I was specifically talking about DH understanding of sexuality because.... that's what we were talking about.

None of us belong to a species that's entirely gay, so, no, that couldn't be lived experience.

If you want to talk about individual hobbits being gay, then, sure? Nothing in the setting prohibits that.

 

[Hawki]

The problem comes when people, you just want straight stuff and nothing else, demands everything needs to be straight and then has the nerve to say that everyone else acts like them

And where have I done that? Seriously, quote the actual line where I wanted that.

Saying "not all hobbits are gay" is a separate statement from "all hobbits are straight," or "some hobbits are gay."

The claim of all hobbits being gay runs counter to the lore, just as saying something like "male asari" would contradict the lore. Those are completely different statements from the ones you're insinuating.

Here is a definition of gaslight:

'manipulate (someone) by psychological means into doubting their own sanity'

Which fits what you're doing. You repeatedly follow the pattern of claiming things were said that never were, or purposely misconstructing arguments.

Identity politics has been around for centuries. Look at the founding fathers. THAT'S identity politics.

I'd say millennia. And yes? And? I never claimed otherwise.

 

[Hawki]

So is Trump, DeSantis, Biden and Clinton

All true (not sure about Clinton, but the others, sure). And? I'm not sure what your point is.

You're not excluded from Identity politics just because you do the white male thing only

True, but I can try not to play the game. But it appears by your definition, canon fits identity politics.

Yes, you did all of that. From the first post. You could have had your opinions of how things should go and that would have been fine. But you decided everyone needed to follow your interpretation of GoT. Please stop

Checks first post...

Ah yes, where you lie that everyone in the setting is white, and said in my first post (which was after yours), and I quote, "Still, HotD won't be made or broken based on the skin colour of its characters."

So not only are you a hypocrite (since you're forcing your definition of LotR by the criteria you're using), but you're a fucking liar as well.

But then, we all knew that.

Just because you find something iffy, doesn't mean that I have

I really don't care what you notice since either you're mentally ill, or you're a liar.

Probably fucking both.

All those points about lore and female space marine that you written out 3 times to me has not convinced me that 40K must ban female space marines. They are not convincing. You don't realise that can just write MORE LORE that says something new. I know this won't make any sense to you, but you are only doing male space marine because that's what you want. The lore justification are just made up stuff. You can just make up new stuff

Oh for God's sake...

First, I never said that GW should ban female Space Marines. I did say, among other things, that if there was a time to introduce female Space Marines, it should have been with the Primaris Marines, but that ship has sailed. I did say why I think female Space Marines are silly from a thematic standpoint (among other things), and arguably hypocritical (since no-one's pushing for male Sisters of Battle), but as far as hard lore goes, there's no ironclad rule that prohibits it.

Second, it's nice to know that you have such contempt for fiction that lore is just "made up stuff." From a technical standpoint that's true, but there's good worldbuilding and bad worldbuilding. Anyone can "make up new stuff," that's besides the point. I "make up stuff" every time I write fiction, whether it's good or bad is in the eyes of the reader.

The original justification of Sister of Battle was some of the most cringy, woke ass, illogical bullshit that was made up on the spot to sell products.

Which was what, exactly? And after all you've done, why should I belive you?

That's fine because NOW they've created some incredible lore that goes beyond its initial stupidity

And does that lore contradict the old lore or not?

Ignore me, or don't. I don't mind. Demanding everyone needs to follow whatever laws you made up around lore is just forcing your ideals on people.

Laws that I made up? I'm flattered you think that I created the settings that have been discussed and the lore for them but...wait. I'm not.

Second, no-one's forcing anyone here to do anything since no-one has authority over the IPs that have been discussed. If anyone, you're the one forcing YOUR ideals, since they basically boil down to "anything goes, canon be damned." Which isn't the worst thing in the world, but you've also had to make up stuff to make your points, as detailed above. No-one's forced to give a damn about versimilitude, but when you extend to lying, gaslighting, and hypocrisy, don't be surprised when people notice. If you say "I want X," and people respond "but X would break the lore" (or less severely, "X wouldn't fit"), you need a better argument than "it's fiction."

They aren't written down, and I'm not interested in buy into those laws and I'm tried of having to follow them

Follow...what?

First, most of what's been discussed HAS been written down - most of the IPs discussed have things written down. Or do all the novels, codecies, and guidebooks not count?

Second, you don't have to follow anything, but if you're making claims about in-universe facts, it's on you to back them up.

You can imagine whatever you want, write whatever you want, fanwank whatever you want (certainly I do/have done all that), but that's not what you're doing, what YOU'RE doing is imposing your own laws and expecting everyone else to follow them.

What's ironic is that you're doing the very things you accuse others of doing.

 

[Hawki]

What do you think retcon stands for?

Retcon is short for retroactive continuity, so in the strictest sense, you could call it a retcon.

In the practical sense, you're conflating retcons with recontextualization. Lord of the Rings recontextualizes The Hobbit, it doesn't retcon it. Sometimes the boundaries get fuzzy, but hardly anyone calls the recontextualization of The Hobbit "a retcon," because if it fits the definition, any information that recontextualizes one's understand of a setting is a retcon.

Like how the Klingons were retconned from being the villains to be allies in TNG because it fit the narrative they wanted to tell?

That's not a retcon. Even if it wasn't for The Undiscovered Country, 100 years pass between TOS (the series, not the movies) and TNG. A lot can change in that time period. FFS, the klingons and Federation becoming allied is foreshadowed in the Organia episode. Per the above point, if your definition of retcon is "things change over time," then that renders the entire concept meaningless.

Story comes first. Then the lore

That's...highly debatable.

First, the two shouldn't be in conflict. If you're writing a story in a pre-existing setting, and your story is messing up/ignoring the lore, then something's gone wrong with your story.

Second, if you're at the starting point of an overall universe, then that's arguably true, and I'd be inclined to agree, but it depends on the writer. Is the writer creating the setting first and then setting stories in it (e.g. Warhammer), or is the writer writing a story, and building/adjusting the setting to match (e.g. The Hobbit)?

Third, on the specific quote you responded to, your claim that story comes before lore is in response to points about setting where lore DOES come before story (W40K is setting driven, not story-driven). There's no real overall story to take precedence over lore, since 40K operates on the principle that status quo is king.