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

[Silvanus]

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

So... not from when it was known to be a hoax?

Then why should I bother with you?

Feel free not to. My preferred outcome doesn't involve you endlessly arguing, you know. All I want to happen is that you stop simultaneously condemning something and doing the same thing.

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

Diddums.

The sheer irony of moaning about "performative outrage" after accusing me of abusing you by disagreeing on the Internet. Satire is not dead!

 

[Silvanus]

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

Disagreeing or lying in an Internet discussion about pop culture with strangers does not meet the bar to qualify as psychological and emotional abuse, and it's slightly gross and disrespectful to actual victims of abuse to act as if it is.

 

[Hawki]

Disagreeing or lying in an Internet discussion about pop culture with strangers does not meet the bar to qualify as psychological and emotional abuse, and it's slightly gross and disrespectful to actual victims of abuse to act as if it is.

To quote your own post, satire isn't dead.

Trunkage went on about victims in his post, but you come after me, because he gets a free pass.

No, I'm not a victim, since Trunkage's lies are blatant for everyone to see, but if he wants to act like a victim, I'm not obliged to indulge him.

 

[Silvanus]

To quote your own post, satire isn't dead.

Trunkage went on about victims in his post, but you come after me, because he gets a free pass.

He didn't invoke emotional/psychological abuse. You & Dwarven did. Just quit it, its facile.

 

[Hawki]

He didn't invoke emotional/psychological abuse. You & Dwarven did. Just quit it, its facile.

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

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.

forums.escapistmagazine.com

He invokes it right at the start of this post.

Even if he didn't, mind explaining why you apply different standards to different people?

 

[Silvanus]

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

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.

forums.escapistmagazine.com

He invokes it right at the start of this post.

!?! Literally the only mention of gaslighting in that post is him responding to you accusing him of it.

Even if he didn't, mind explaining why you apply different standards to different people?

I'm not. If someone invokes abuse in order to take a shot in a forum pop culture debate, I'll call it out regardless of who did it.

Some people did that, others did not do it. That's not a different standard.

 

[Bedinsis]

Man, I long for the old days when people felt the word "lying" was strong enough without having to use the word "gaslighting".

 

[Agema]

Man, I long for the old days when people felt the word "lying" was strong enough without having to use the word "gaslighting".

"Gaslighting" is just another tedious internet buzzword for people to make their small issues sound more interesting, which in a few years will go back to relative obscurity along with "sealioning", "fisking" and whatever else.

 

[Silvanus]

"Gaslighting" is just another tedious internet buzzword for people to make their small issues sound more interesting, which in a few years will go back to relative obscurity along with "sealioning", "fisking" and whatever else.

It has a valid and pre-existing definition relating to a tactic of emotional abuse in a domestic setting.

 

[Agema]

It has a valid and pre-existing definition relating to a tactic of emotional abuse in a domestic setting.

Indeed it does. And like many other useful terms, it can be hopelessly debased by the internet as an exaggeratedly hysterical way of saying "I don't like what you're saying to me" until either everyone gets bored or it's been diluted into triviality.

 

[Trunkage]

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.

Star Trek 6 come out after TNG started

Yes its a retcon. They want to change what Klingons were for a new show so they could have one specific character that could be like the Spock on the show

People found changing the Klingons so much outrageous at the time. Just like they found Picard outrageous. And Sisko outrageous. Whatever Star Trek does, some one is going to find it outrageous

Edit: People were cranky with the changes to the Klingons in Star Trek 3

 

[Trunkage]

Man, I long for the old days when people felt the word "lying" was strong enough without having to use the word "gaslighting".

No, we had other terms back then but they were more specific. It usually started with 'You're not a real X so you Y idea is invalid'. When they said this, you not being a real X just meant that you disagree with them

You can decide if this is worse or more insulting

 

[Trunkage]

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.

You know, just apply this logic to NuTrek. It's all recontextualization.

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.

Seems like we have very different understandings of retcon.

Soon you gonna tell me Vulcan Neck Rub is a legitimate thing that was always lore and not something they made up on the spot and turned into 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.

1) They are absolutely always in conflict. A Star Trek episodes, particularly TNG, is just a bunch of technobabble to get them around lore they've built up. They rewrote lore all the time and completely ignore lore most of the time.

2) Warhammer has a big problem with so many writers and not excising its official stuff from the written stuff like Star Trek does. You cannot keep continuity like that. Not even if they had a Mark Gruenwald

3) No, the books (particularly Horus Heresy stuff) keep retconning specific event very specifically to only add drama and nothing to the overall story. There are now way more physical fights between Primarchs before the Heresy even started than what happened in the 90s. It's like watching Neighbours with sword (was that reference too soon?). Most of the fights don't make sense, aren't necessary and dont have an impact on the overall story. It's like the MCU trying to make their hero fight all the time. They do it for the drama

Edit: On 3, this is not a bad thing. 40K is first and foremost drama dialled up to 11. I do not use retcon generally as a derogatory term

 

[Trunkage]

I'm going to add that if you want to add different terms to changing lore to suit the needs of the story, go ahead.

Also, I think the lore in a single series is important to that series and trumps the lore of the franchise. Eg. It never made sense that the Enterprise wasnt front and centre during the Dominion war. It's better you just pretend it never existed. Story comes first, then season, then series, then franchise. Season 3 of Enterprise doesn't make sense compared to the first two. That's okay, the individual stories and the overal season worked well together

 

[Trunkage]

Got a question for those talking about gaslighting

Mississippi laws state that foetuses are 'real person' at conception thus you can't abort them

Mississippi laws also state that a divorce cannot be fulfilled until after a birth has happened because foetuses aren't 'real people' and thus you cannot settle a custody battle until they are born

Where's this on the gaslight spectrum?

 

[Trunkage]

I'm going to seperate this

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.

You can choose one of two options. Either you are:

1) Culture warrior is set on destroying society as we know it. I'm giving this person a high priority in interactions because they are dangerous

2) Someone who has opinions but aren't interested in hurting someone. I'm giving this person a low priority in interactions because they aren't dangerous. I might even skip over most of the stuff because it's not as important as dangerous stuff

Which category would you to be placed in? Note, if you pick 2) if I 'ignore' you, it might be because a culture warrior is out and causing havoc and I have to triage damage, so you might not receive attention

 

[Trunkage]

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."

You keep using the word 'sense'. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You keep using 'sense' to mean 'this is what I WANT this story to be.' It's fiction. If it turns out it like the Dragonriders of Pern... great. I doesn't have to conform to you wishes

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.

*Looks at what Hawki has posted*
All you have given is subjective reasons for why you want hobbits etc to be a certain way
So... I'd say you are correct here. It's all subjective

I'd be putting elves here in the long lived category but I digress
Let's saying somehow Melkor gets out of the Halls of Mandos and corrupts Valinor turning all the elves into short lived mortals. Or even, Melkor turns out to be a disease bomb that explodes 100 years after Sauron dies, killing all the elves. Maybe Iluvatar gets killed somehow and the elves lose their power. Maybe they just last 3 ages and now start dying out. There are plenty of things you can do

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?

This is a stretch to believe.

Firstly, this is a fiction universe. You presented fiction

Secondly, I didn't say that had to be one way or another. I said they COULD be gay or reproduce asexually. I didn't say they couldn't be straight
You were the one (originally) saying they had to be straight and ANYTHING different is called 'iffy' (iffy here meaning your subjective feelings)

Thirdly, why anyone need to prove they are gay? Why is that even necessary?

Edit: I'll get through these eventually

 

[Terminal Blue]

1) They are absolutely always in conflict. A Star Trek episodes, particularly TNG, is just a bunch of technobabble to get them around lore they've built up. They rewrote lore all the time and completely ignore lore most of the time.

I'm working my way through TOS right now and while I am enjoying it in a semi-ironic sense, it's really fucking weird. It's very clear that there isn't really a continuity to TOS at all, it's a series of stories built around some very basic core relationships between characters and stuff just works however it needs to work at the time to facilitate the story.

And I think what's really insulting about NuTrek is that it doesn't seem to understand why people like TOS or TNG/DS9/Voyager. It isn't the events or the worldbuilding or the "science", because these things are paper thin. It's the characters. Everything else is just a vehicle for those characters to bounce off. It's a way to put them in situations where their different personalities and beliefs and the ideas they represent can come into play. The characters are always the emotional heart, everything around them is incidental.

But again, I don't think NuTrek understands this. We get straight-faced references to goofy-ass shit like Agent Gary 7 for the sake of having a reference, and characters who are completely rewritten to fit some mangled half-remembrance of who they were.

It makes me look back more fondly on the DS9 episode Trials and Tribble-ations. Because that's a blatant fan-service episode, but it knows what it is and it feels like it was written by some weirdos who genuinely loved TOS and got what was enjoyable about it. They don't retcon the tone, and they don't try and explain anything. In fact, one of the best lines is Worf refusing to explain something that would be entirely reasonable to need an explanation for if this was a serious show. It's just fun, and that's really all Star Trek is.

And don't get me wrong, I think TNG-era Star Trek in particular could be very smart sometimes, but part of that was the ability to take risks in a setting with low continuity. A serious show concerned with maintaining its own lore could not have given us Far Beyond the Stars.

 

[Agema]

And don't get me wrong, I think TNG-era Star Trek in particular could be very smart sometimes, but part of that was the ability to take risks in a setting with low continuity. A serious show concerned with maintaining its own lore could not have given us Far Beyond the Stars.

I read someone's PhD on Doctor Who years ago - specifically, why it declined in the 80s and was eventually ceased. A major plank of this was that the show ended up written and produced by fans from the 60s and 70s, who drove it into a demand for continuity and thus self-reference that shut out potential new watchers, and so the viewing figures started to decline. There are legendary stories of Dr. Who conventions where poor actors are asked to explain lore inconsistencies between episodes 89 and 267 or whatever.

I think wherever continuity gets in the way of a good story, ditching continuity is usually the best idea. But this has a cost many writers and producers may be unwilling to pay, of immensely riling a certain sector of fans.

 

[Satinavian]

I do value sticking to ones own lore quite a lot.

If a franchise does not value lore and instead chases new ideas for stories whenever, i tend to stop caring. Sure sometimes it is too restrictive and a retcon might be worth it. But it should be considered carefully whether it really is worth it.