|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 18, 2023 13:55:07 GMT
But the point remains that she disagrees with Dallas (an SJW thing), she doesn't trust Ash (an SJW thing) and ends up the defacto boss when the straight white male lead dies (an SJW thing).
And as you stated, Sarah is little more than a horror film Final Girl character in the first Terminator. There's a reason her T2 self is brought up more than her T1 self, it's because her T1 self isn't much of anything.
Her disagreeing with Dallas isn't a discussion relating to social justice, neither is her distrust of Ash, and neither is her becoming the boss of the operation after her superior dies. I brought up Sarah Connor's characterization in Terminator 2, and you chose to highlight her characterization in the original - which, you argue, would be seen as a social justice warrior figure, but as others including myself have highlighted, she wouldn't unless you adjust the screenplay. Her disagreeing with Dallas would be see as a Social Justice thing these days, same with Ash and her taking command. These days anything wherein the woman does anything assertive is seen as social justice. It's how hypercritical modern society has become the last 8 years over women.
I chose the original Terminator because well...it's the original, not a later sequel. She's still SJW by today's hypercritical standards in that she survives and Reese doesn't and she isn't a useless damsel.
Simply put, anytime there's a female character in anything today and they aren't a useless shrieking damsel, it's going to get them labeled "SJW Propaganda".
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 18, 2023 20:31:59 GMT
The child under the age of four isn't very likely to see a same-sex couple making out in public or expressing their love for each other in a way that will give the impression that they aren't any more than good friends. A child under the age of four isn't very likely to grasp the concept of being bisexual, pansexual, or transgender, questions like "I have friends who are boys and friends who are girls, does that make me bisexual or pansexual?" and "I like to wear boy clothes, am I transgender?" are not going to topics their parents are likely to want to explain thoroughly at that point in their lives, which is why it is preferred that such subjects be taught in all their complexity at an older age. A child under 4 isn't very likely to see a heterosexual couple making out in public or expressing love either in a way that they'd perfectly understand.
Modern parents should be willing to talk to their kid about questions they have, even if the answer is "When you're young you're not sure what you want to do, just have fun and when you're older maybe you'll know more."
It's not going to destroy their minds.
I am not making the argument that presenting concepts like of which is shown in the Blue's Clues revival is going to harm the children or destroy their minds, I am making the argument that they are too young at the age of four and younger to really understand the complexities of such concepts due to their simplistic worldview. They are at the age when they're still trying to learn their ABC's and 123's, trying to explain the difference between pansexuality and bisexuality is not something they're going to be able to completely understand and their parents are not very likely to feel comfortable trying to explain it even in a very simplified way. Because of this, I do not think children of the age of four or younger really need to learn about such mature topics till they are older and more developed middle school is generally preferred because they start to incorporate mature topics into curriculum.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 18, 2023 21:03:46 GMT
Her disagreeing with Dallas isn't a discussion relating to social justice, neither is her distrust of Ash, and neither is her becoming the boss of the operation after her superior dies. I brought up Sarah Connor's characterization in Terminator 2, and you chose to highlight her characterization in the original - which, you argue, would be seen as a social justice warrior figure, but as others including myself have highlighted, she wouldn't unless you adjust the screenplay. Her disagreeing with Dallas would be see as a Social Justice thing these days, same with Ash and her taking command. These days anything wherein the woman does anything assertive is seen as social justice. It's how hypercritical modern society has become the last 8 years over women.
I chose the original Terminator because well...it's the original, not a later sequel. She's still SJW by today's hypercritical standards in that she survives and Reese doesn't and she isn't a useless damsel.
Simply put, anytime there's a female character in anything today and they aren't a useless shrieking damsel, it's going to get them labeled "SJW Propaganda".
Sarah Connor in the original Terminator isn't a social justice warrior by today's hypercritical standards for those reasons. She has no agenda to push, she isn't screaming to be noticed, her lover does most of the heavy lifting because she's not prepared to deal Nobody to my knowledge have labeled the television and film female characters (of recent media) Letty Ortiz, Mia Toretto, Gisele Yashar, Ramsey, Hattie Shaw, Queenie (from the Fast and the Furious franchise), Alita (from the 2019 Alita: Battle Angel film adaptation), Wonder Woman (Portrayed by Gal Gadot), Lorraine Broughton (from the 2017 film Atomic Blonde), Selene (from the Underworld franchise), Rita Vrataski (From the 2014 film Edge of Tomorrow), Michonne (From The Walking Dead), Neytiri, Kiri, Lo'Ak, Tuktirey, Tsireya, Ronal (From 2009's Avatar and it's 2022 sequel The Way of Water) , Evelyn Wang (From 2022's Everything Everywhere All At Once), Charlie Watson (From the 2018 Transformers cinematic reboot Bumblebee) as being social justice warrior propaganda. Nobody even started to use "social justice warrior propaganda" for the Marvel Cinematic Universe even till 2019's Captain Marvel when the signs were point to them taking more cues from fairly recent comic book runs.
|
|
|
Post by leviathan on Jan 18, 2023 22:45:46 GMT
Not specifically for the genre but they do cover them:
I follow Campea, Jahns and Stuckmann
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 18, 2023 23:49:06 GMT
A child under 4 isn't very likely to see a heterosexual couple making out in public or expressing love either in a way that they'd perfectly understand.
Modern parents should be willing to talk to their kid about questions they have, even if the answer is "When you're young you're not sure what you want to do, just have fun and when you're older maybe you'll know more."
It's not going to destroy their minds.
I am not making the argument that presenting concepts like of which is shown in the Blue's Clues revival is going to harm the children or destroy their minds, I am making the argument that they are too young at the age of four and younger to really understand the complexities of such concepts due to their simplistic worldview. They are at the age when they're still trying to learn their ABC's and 123's, trying to explain the difference between pansexuality and bisexuality is not something they're going to be able to completely understand and their parents are not very likely to feel comfortable trying to explain it even in a very simplified way. Because of this, I do not think children of the age of four or younger really need to learn about such mature topics till they are older and more developed middle school is generally preferred because they start to incorporate mature topics into curriculum. No kids have been driven crazy by any of it, and even if they don't understand it completely it still won't hurt them. It might make them more open minded later, but it won't hurt them.
It's trial and error, Programmers learning how to reach kids better day by day. This is the start.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 18, 2023 23:52:47 GMT
Her disagreeing with Dallas would be see as a Social Justice thing these days, same with Ash and her taking command. These days anything wherein the woman does anything assertive is seen as social justice. It's how hypercritical modern society has become the last 8 years over women.
I chose the original Terminator because well...it's the original, not a later sequel. She's still SJW by today's hypercritical standards in that she survives and Reese doesn't and she isn't a useless damsel.
Simply put, anytime there's a female character in anything today and they aren't a useless shrieking damsel, it's going to get them labeled "SJW Propaganda".
Sarah Connor in the original Terminator isn't a social justice warrior by today's hypercritical standards for those reasons. She has no agenda to push, she isn't screaming to be noticed, her lover does most of the heavy lifting because she's not prepared to deal Nobody to my knowledge have labeled the television and film female characters (of recent media) Letty Ortiz, Mia Toretto, Gisele Yashar, Ramsey, Hattie Shaw, Queenie (from the Fast and the Furious franchise), Alita (from the 2019 Alita: Battle Angel film adaptation), Wonder Woman (Portrayed by Gal Gadot), Lorraine Broughton (from the 2017 film Atomic Blonde), Selene (from the Underworld franchise), Rita Vrataski (From the 2014 film Edge of Tomorrow), Michonne (From The Walking Dead), Neytiri, Kiri, Lo'Ak, Tuktirey, Tsireya, Ronal (From 2009's Avatar and it's 2022 sequel The Way of Water) , Evelyn Wang (From 2022's Everything Everywhere All At Once), Charlie Watson (From the 2018 Transformers cinematic reboot Bumblebee) as being social justice warrior propaganda. Nobody even started to use "social justice warrior propaganda" for the Marvel Cinematic Universe even till 2019's Captain Marvel when the signs were point to them taking more cues from fairly recent comic book runs. By virtue of being a woman who isn't a useless shrieking damsel and helping Reese and trying to understand him rather than condemn him the way everyone else did, it makes her a SJW.
A female character doesn't need to say "I'm a woman who isn't a damsel" to be a "SJW" by modern hypercritical standards. And yes, Terminator has an Agenda.
The Fast and the Furious, where women are all secondary to Dom.
Alita and Wonder Woman, both that disgusting "Born Sexy Yesterday" cliche.
Lorraine Broughton, who is an SJW character. Being played by Charlize Theron means the Injustice Warriors can't criticize her though.
Selene, a "Male Gaze" object.
Rita Vratski, who is secondary to Tom Cruise
Michonne, secondary to Rick
Avatar, which is SJW
Evelyn Wang, a nonwhite woman, therefore SJW
Charlie Watson, who is secondary to Bumblebee
That "SJW" was used against the MCU is simply another sign of hypocrisy. The second a real Leading Lady (as opposed to a secondary, like Black Widow) shows up, the "fans" go berserk. They hated the idea of any leading women in the MCU who weren't secondary characters who only guest starred in other movies.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 19, 2023 0:34:02 GMT
I am not making the argument that presenting concepts like of which is shown in the Blue's Clues revival is going to harm the children or destroy their minds, I am making the argument that they are too young at the age of four and younger to really understand the complexities of such concepts due to their simplistic worldview. They are at the age when they're still trying to learn their ABC's and 123's, trying to explain the difference between pansexuality and bisexuality is not something they're going to be able to completely understand and their parents are not very likely to feel comfortable trying to explain it even in a very simplified way. Because of this, I do not think children of the age of four or younger really need to learn about such mature topics till they are older and more developed middle school is generally preferred because they start to incorporate mature topics into curriculum. No kids have been driven crazy by any of it, and even if they don't understand it completely it still won't hurt them. It might make them more open minded later, but it won't hurt them.
It's trial and error, Programmers learning how to reach kids better day by day. This is the start.
Again, I am not arguing that children under the age of four will be hurt by being introduced to such concepts, my argument is that they won't understand any of it, be confused, and that their parents are unlikely to want to have a conversation explaining all of it at their age and would prefer waiting till their older, like in middle school when sexual education classes are offered as part of curriculum. A pretty big error on the programmer's part, because they received backlash for it. If they want the children to learn about the importance of good dietary habits, brushing your teeth, being kind to others, listening to their parents, be mindful of the environment, and having good manners, and trying to adjust to change then I would encourage it, but having a musical segment dedicated to the celebration of sexual relationship and identity? No, four and younger is too young an audience to understand and appreciate such a thing.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 19, 2023 0:37:26 GMT
No kids have been driven crazy by any of it, and even if they don't understand it completely it still won't hurt them. It might make them more open minded later, but it won't hurt them.
It's trial and error, Programmers learning how to reach kids better day by day. This is the start.
Again, I am not arguing that children under the age of four will be hurt by being introduced to such concepts, my argument is that they won't understand any of it, be confused, and that their parents are unlikely to want to have a conversation explaining all of it at their age and would prefer waiting till their older, like in middle school when sexual education classes are offered as part of curriculum. A pretty big error on the programmer's part, because they received backlash for it. If they want the children to learn about the importance of good dietary habits, brushing your teeth, being kind to others, listening to their parents, be mindful of the environment, and having good manners, and trying to adjust to change then I would encourage it, but having a musical segment dedicated to the celebration of sexual relationship and identity? No, four and younger is too young an audience to understand and appreciate such a thing. All the parents have to do is say "If you don't understand it now, that's fine. Just play and when you're older we can talk about it."
They get backlash for anything progressive. 50 years ago they'd have gotten in trouble for saying "People who aren't the same color as you are good kind people."
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 19, 2023 0:55:42 GMT
Sarah Connor in the original Terminator isn't a social justice warrior by today's hypercritical standards for those reasons. She has no agenda to push, she isn't screaming to be noticed, her lover does most of the heavy lifting because she's not prepared to deal Nobody to my knowledge have labeled the television and film female characters (of recent media) Letty Ortiz, Mia Toretto, Gisele Yashar, Ramsey, Hattie Shaw, Queenie (from the Fast and the Furious franchise), Alita (from the 2019 Alita: Battle Angel film adaptation), Wonder Woman (Portrayed by Gal Gadot), Lorraine Broughton (from the 2017 film Atomic Blonde), Selene (from the Underworld franchise), Rita Vrataski (From the 2014 film Edge of Tomorrow), Michonne (From The Walking Dead), Neytiri, Kiri, Lo'Ak, Tuktirey, Tsireya, Ronal (From 2009's Avatar and it's 2022 sequel The Way of Water) , Evelyn Wang (From 2022's Everything Everywhere All At Once), Charlie Watson (From the 2018 Transformers cinematic reboot Bumblebee) as being social justice warrior propaganda. Nobody even started to use "social justice warrior propaganda" for the Marvel Cinematic Universe even till 2019's Captain Marvel when the signs were point to them taking more cues from fairly recent comic book runs. By virtue of being a woman who isn't a useless shrieking damsel and helping Reese and trying to understand him rather than condemn him the way everyone else did, it makes her a SJW.
A female character doesn't need to say "I'm a woman who isn't a damsel" to be a "SJW" by modern hypercritical standards. And yes, Terminator has an Agenda.
The Fast and the Furious, where women are all secondary to Dom.
Alita and Wonder Woman, both that disgusting "Born Sexy Yesterday" cliche.
Lorraine Broughton, who is an SJW character. Being played by Charlize Theron means the Injustice Warriors can't criticize her though.
Selene, a "Male Gaze" object.
Rita Vratski, who is secondary to Tom Cruise
Michonne, secondary to Rick
Avatar, which is SJW
Evelyn Wang, a nonwhite woman, therefore SJW
Charlie Watson, who is secondary to Bumblebee
That "SJW" was used against the MCU is simply another sign of hypocrisy. The second a real Leading Lady (as opposed to a secondary, like Black Widow) shows up, the "fans" go berserk. They hated the idea of any leading women in the MCU who weren't secondary characters who only guest starred in other movies.
No, that does not make Sarah Connor a social justice warrior in the original Terminator. A social justice warrior is someone who expresses and promotes socially progressive views, all Sarah Connor wants to do in the original Terminator is to survive. What agenda is that of The Terminator franchise? Being careful with artificial intelligence is what the franchise is built around because when not done right you get a takeover of the whole planet. You had said, and I quote, "anytime there's a female character in anything today", you did not specify if they were the lead or were supporting, so I made the selection of different female characters in modern media that I have yet to see people used as an example of "social justice warrior propaganda". The major female characters in the Fast and the Furious series can hold their own with the male characters and are given memorable action beats. They're not damsels in distress. Why is that a bad trope, necessarily? Both Wonder Woman and Alita are well-defined characters in their parent films who struggle and try to make sense of a new world they're introduced to, and their movies are pretty well-liked. Broughton wasn't a social justice warrior; she was a government agent sent on a mission. And people of 'injustice warriors' or however you wish to label them as have criticized Theron plenty of times for her political views and how she is raising her adopted children. Looking attractive doesn't diminish the character of Selene in the Underworld franchise, she's still seen as a strong female lead even if the movies are not that well regarded critically. And? Rita is still seen as a strong female character. And? Still she is seen as a srong female character. None of the female characters in Avatar and its sequel have been accused of pushing social justice warrior rhetoric. That's not how it works, as there are a number of non-white people who dislike the term 'social justice warrior' and often complain about them. The movie was titled Bumblebee, but Charlie Watson was the real lead of the film and was regarded as well-written and performed by her actress Hailee Steinfeld. Nobody was against a Captain Marvel movie with Carol Danvers, they just didn't want it to be based on more recent runs of the character that were polarizing.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 19, 2023 1:00:56 GMT
Again, I am not arguing that children under the age of four will be hurt by being introduced to such concepts, my argument is that they won't understand any of it, be confused, and that their parents are unlikely to want to have a conversation explaining all of it at their age and would prefer waiting till their older, like in middle school when sexual education classes are offered as part of curriculum. A pretty big error on the programmer's part, because they received backlash for it. If they want the children to learn about the importance of good dietary habits, brushing your teeth, being kind to others, listening to their parents, be mindful of the environment, and having good manners, and trying to adjust to change then I would encourage it, but having a musical segment dedicated to the celebration of sexual relationship and identity? No, four and younger is too young an audience to understand and appreciate such a thing. All the parents have to do is say "If you don't understand it now, that's fine. Just play and when you're older we can talk about it."
They get backlash for anything progressive. 50 years ago they'd have gotten in trouble for saying "People who aren't the same color as you are good kind people."
But kids aren't that likely to accept that answer and carry on with their day, and if the episode re-airs the question will be asked again. I would think after that episode has been seen by the child, the parent will moderate what they see on television more often. But the concept of accepting people of all colors in a society is a universal concept that is shared by majority that isn't restricted to age to understand properly. Concepts like pansexuality and transgenderism, however, are, and are encouraged to be taught at a later age by most people.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 19, 2023 1:26:08 GMT
By virtue of being a woman who isn't a useless shrieking damsel and helping Reese and trying to understand him rather than condemn him the way everyone else did, it makes her a SJW.
A female character doesn't need to say "I'm a woman who isn't a damsel" to be a "SJW" by modern hypercritical standards. And yes, Terminator has an Agenda.
The Fast and the Furious, where women are all secondary to Dom.
Alita and Wonder Woman, both that disgusting "Born Sexy Yesterday" cliche.
Lorraine Broughton, who is an SJW character. Being played by Charlize Theron means the Injustice Warriors can't criticize her though.
Selene, a "Male Gaze" object.
Rita Vratski, who is secondary to Tom Cruise
Michonne, secondary to Rick
Avatar, which is SJW
Evelyn Wang, a nonwhite woman, therefore SJW
Charlie Watson, who is secondary to Bumblebee
That "SJW" was used against the MCU is simply another sign of hypocrisy. The second a real Leading Lady (as opposed to a secondary, like Black Widow) shows up, the "fans" go berserk. They hated the idea of any leading women in the MCU who weren't secondary characters who only guest starred in other movies.
No, that does not make Sarah Connor a social justice warrior in the original Terminator. A social justice warrior is someone who expresses and promotes socially progressive views, all Sarah Connor wants to do in the original Terminator is to survive. What agenda is that of The Terminator franchise? Being careful with artificial intelligence is what the franchise is built around because when not done right you get a takeover of the whole planet. You had said, and I quote, "anytime there's a female character in anything today", you did not specify if they were the lead or were supporting, so I made the selection of different female characters in modern media that I have yet to see people used as an example of "social justice warrior propaganda". The major female characters in the Fast and the Furious series can hold their own with the male characters and are given memorable action beats. They're not damsels in distress. Why is that a bad trope, necessarily? Both Wonder Woman and Alita are well-defined characters in their parent films who struggle and try to make sense of a new world they're introduced to, and their movies are pretty well-liked. Broughton wasn't a social justice warrior; she was a government agent sent on a mission. And people of 'injustice warriors' or however you wish to label them as have criticized Theron plenty of times for her political views and how she is raising her adopted children. Looking attractive doesn't diminish the character of Selene in the Underworld franchise, she's still seen as a strong female lead even if the movies are not that well regarded critically. And? Rita is still seen as a strong female character. And? Still she is seen as a srong female character. None of the female characters in Avatar and its sequel have been accused of pushing social justice warrior rhetoric. That's not how it works, as there are a number of non-white people who dislike the term 'social justice warrior' and often complain about them. The movie was titled Bumblebee, but Charlie Watson was the real lead of the film and was regarded as well-written and performed by her actress Hailee Steinfeld. Nobody was against a Captain Marvel movie with Carol Danvers, they just didn't want it to be based on more recent runs of the character that were polarizing. Yes, it does. By virtue of her surviving and not being a useless shrieking damsel and treating Reese better than anyone else she is. Those are progressive views.
Terminator is Anti-War, a progressive and thus SJW message.
And I pointed out how several really are, and how there are "justifications" for why the Injustice Warriors can't own up.
They're also all oversexualized male gaze characters who are still secondary to the men.
It's terrible, it's sexist and backwards and exploitative and it cripples anything good about Alita and WW. This innate sexism is precisely WHY men don't feel threatened by them.
And by virtue of not being a useless shrieking damsel who needs men to rescue her, she SJW. That's all it takes to be SJW now.
She's not, she's seen as a sex object more than a character. No different from Lara Croft.
She's secondary to Cruise, a sidekick.
She's secondary to Rick, a sidekick.
But they are, they fit the criteria. It's just more hypocrisy.
Not the way the majority of Injustice Warriors act.
She wasn't, she was pretty superfluous after a while. That's why she's tolerated more than Shia LaBoeuf's character, because she isn't important.
Oh yes they were. As soon as the movie was announced the "fans" were vehemently opposed. They hated the character for existing. It doesn't matter the run, they wanted NO version of her to be in the MCU.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 19, 2023 1:27:15 GMT
All the parents have to do is say "If you don't understand it now, that's fine. Just play and when you're older we can talk about it."
They get backlash for anything progressive. 50 years ago they'd have gotten in trouble for saying "People who aren't the same color as you are good kind people."
But kids aren't that likely to accept that answer and carry on with their day, and if the episode re-airs the question will be asked again. I would think after that episode has been seen by the child, the parent will moderate what they see on television more often. But the concept of accepting people of all colors in a society is a universal concept that is shared by majority that isn't restricted to age to understand properly. Concepts like pansexuality and transgenderism, however, are, and are encouraged to be taught at a later age by most people. And they can keep thinking about that stuff. Thinking is good.
Concepts like Pansexuality and Transgenderism are simply just starting to become more well known. Eventually they'll be as universal a concept as different skin colors. We're in a transitional period, that's all.
|
|
|
Post by blockbusted on Jan 19, 2023 1:59:28 GMT
But kids aren't that likely to accept that answer and carry on with their day, and if the episode re-airs the question will be asked again. I would think after that episode has been seen by the child, the parent will moderate what they see on television more often. But the concept of accepting people of all colors in a society is a universal concept that is shared by majority that isn't restricted to age to understand properly. Concepts like pansexuality and transgenderism, however, are, and are encouraged to be taught at a later age by most people. And they can keep thinking about that stuff. Thinking is good.
Concepts like Pansexuality and Transgenderism are simply just starting to become more well known. Eventually they'll be as universal a concept as different skin colors. We're in a transitional period, that's all.
You know, speaking of which, I wonder why we haven’t seen a whole lot of bisexual/pansexual characters in tentpole-level films. Not that I’m against homosexual characters, but still.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 19, 2023 2:17:01 GMT
And they can keep thinking about that stuff. Thinking is good.
Concepts like Pansexuality and Transgenderism are simply just starting to become more well known. Eventually they'll be as universal a concept as different skin colors. We're in a transitional period, that's all.
You know, speaking of which, I wonder why we haven’t seen a whole lot of bisexual/pansexual characters in tentpole-level films. Not that I’m against homosexual characters, but still. Give it time.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 19, 2023 4:43:56 GMT
But kids aren't that likely to accept that answer and carry on with their day, and if the episode re-airs the question will be asked again. I would think after that episode has been seen by the child, the parent will moderate what they see on television more often. But the concept of accepting people of all colors in a society is a universal concept that is shared by majority that isn't restricted to age to understand properly. Concepts like pansexuality and transgenderism, however, are, and are encouraged to be taught at a later age by most people. And they can keep thinking about that stuff. Thinking is good.
Concepts like Pansexuality and Transgenderism are simply just starting to become more well known. Eventually they'll be as universal a concept as different skin colors. We're in a transitional period, that's all.
Not necessarily, because very young children are easily impressionable, they may get the wrong idea and could become confused about their identity (transgenderism) and if they like someone does that mean they want to marry them? (homosexuality, pansexuality, bisexuality). A four-year-old girl telling their parent they want to suddenly be a boy and vice versa isn't going to sit well with very many parents, except for those that want to force that kind of thinking process onto them (which happens, there are parents who raise their boys like girls, and girls like boys, and make them wear clothing specific). I do not see why children of the age of four or younger really need to learn about subject matter they will not have any idea about till they get older, why is it wrong if they learn about certain things when they get into middle school? A child who likes to read doesn't need to get a copy of War and Peace and be expected to read it, a child who likes math doesn't need to be tasked to study The Riemann Hypothesis. I am not really seeing a huge rise in pansexuality and transgenderism, to be honest. In my neck of the woods, I have only met four or five people who were transgender in the last few years, and most couples I encounter are straight. California seems to have a pretty large population of people who identify as pansexual and transgender but despite the number of times they try to incorporate such concepts into their content they are all still seen as a small number of people compared to the rest of the population, who are straight and are fine with their gender. I don't see either being universally accepted, to be honest, because religious text describes both as being sinful and in some countries in the rest of the world they both go against established culture that people who practice it can see severe punishment. I see it all as hot topics for many years to come, to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 19, 2023 5:03:06 GMT
And they can keep thinking about that stuff. Thinking is good.
Concepts like Pansexuality and Transgenderism are simply just starting to become more well known. Eventually they'll be as universal a concept as different skin colors. We're in a transitional period, that's all.
Not necessarily, because very young children are easily impressionable, they may get the wrong idea and could become confused about their identity (transgenderism) and if they like someone does that mean they want to marry them? (homosexuality, pansexuality, bisexuality). A four-year-old girl telling their parent they want to suddenly be a boy and vice versa isn't going to sit well with very many parents, except for those that want to force that kind of thinking process onto them (which happens, there are parents who raise their boys like girls, and girls like boys, and make them wear clothing specific). I do not see why children of the age of four or younger really need to learn about subject matter they will not have any idea about till they get older, why is it wrong if they learn about certain things when they get into middle school? A child who likes to read doesn't need to get a copy of War and Peace and be expected to read it, a child who likes math doesn't need to be tasked to study The Riemann Hypothesis. I am not really seeing a huge rise in pansexuality and transgenderism, to be honest. In my neck of the woods, I have only met four or five people who were transgender in the last few years, and most couples I encounter are straight. California seems to have a pretty large population of people who identify as pansexual and transgender but despite the number of times they try to incorporate such concepts into their content they are all still seen as a small number of people compared to the rest of the population, who are straight and are fine with their gender. I don't see either being universally accepted, to be honest, because religious text describes both as being sinful and in some countries in the rest of the world they both go against established culture that people who practice it can see severe punishment. I see it all as hot topics for many years to come, to be honest. Young kids also think "I want to marry my brother/sister" because they don't understand what that means until later. Does it destroy their minds? No it doesn't. It's harmless.
If the parents get upset at a 4 year old saying something innocent like that, it says more about the parents instead of humoring the kid and realizing they're not really understanding.
If those kids choose to read those things, it's still their choice and it won't hurt them.
I've been seeing more and more of them, it weirded me out at first but then I realized it's just a new fact of life and accepted it. Same with Homosexual couples.
Religious Texts have been getting rewritten and redone by people for centuries, to fit their agenda. Meaning there's no way to know if that stuff is really sinful or not anymore.
It's still happening, whether the old folks like it or not.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 19, 2023 5:14:00 GMT
No, that does not make Sarah Connor a social justice warrior in the original Terminator. A social justice warrior is someone who expresses and promotes socially progressive views, all Sarah Connor wants to do in the original Terminator is to survive. What agenda is that of The Terminator franchise? Being careful with artificial intelligence is what the franchise is built around because when not done right you get a takeover of the whole planet. You had said, and I quote, "anytime there's a female character in anything today", you did not specify if they were the lead or were supporting, so I made the selection of different female characters in modern media that I have yet to see people used as an example of "social justice warrior propaganda". The major female characters in the Fast and the Furious series can hold their own with the male characters and are given memorable action beats. They're not damsels in distress. Why is that a bad trope, necessarily? Both Wonder Woman and Alita are well-defined characters in their parent films who struggle and try to make sense of a new world they're introduced to, and their movies are pretty well-liked. Broughton wasn't a social justice warrior; she was a government agent sent on a mission. And people of 'injustice warriors' or however you wish to label them as have criticized Theron plenty of times for her political views and how she is raising her adopted children. Looking attractive doesn't diminish the character of Selene in the Underworld franchise, she's still seen as a strong female lead even if the movies are not that well regarded critically. And? Rita is still seen as a strong female character. And? Still she is seen as a srong female character. None of the female characters in Avatar and its sequel have been accused of pushing social justice warrior rhetoric. That's not how it works, as there are a number of non-white people who dislike the term 'social justice warrior' and often complain about them. The movie was titled Bumblebee, but Charlie Watson was the real lead of the film and was regarded as well-written and performed by her actress Hailee Steinfeld. Nobody was against a Captain Marvel movie with Carol Danvers, they just didn't want it to be based on more recent runs of the character that were polarizing. Yes, it does. By virtue of her surviving and not being a useless shrieking damsel and treating Reese better than anyone else she is. Those are progressive views.
Terminator is Anti-War, a progressive and thus SJW message.
And I pointed out how several really are, and how there are "justifications" for why the Injustice Warriors can't own up.
They're also all oversexualized male gaze characters who are still secondary to the men.
It's terrible, it's sexist and backwards and exploitative and it cripples anything good about Alita and WW. This innate sexism is precisely WHY men don't feel threatened by them.
And by virtue of not being a useless shrieking damsel who needs men to rescue her, she SJW. That's all it takes to be SJW now.
She's not, she's seen as a sex object more than a character. No different from Lara Croft.
She's secondary to Cruise, a sidekick.
She's secondary to Rick, a sidekick.
But they are, they fit the criteria. It's just more hypocrisy.
Not the way the majority of Injustice Warriors act.
She wasn't, she was pretty superfluous after a while. That's why she's tolerated more than Shia LaBoeuf's character, because she isn't important.
Oh yes they were. As soon as the movie was announced the "fans" were vehemently opposed. They hated the character for existing. It doesn't matter the run, they wanted NO version of her to be in the MCU.
Progressive? Perhaps, but that doesn't make her a social justice warrior. I wouldn't really describe The Terminator franchise as being anti-war, the movies focus on man versus machine and the first two are to make sure John Connor is safe because he is the leader of the human resistance should ever the machines wage war against the human species. There is always attempt to stop Judgment Day, but it is done through violent means. You didn't specify if the female characters had to be the lead of the films or television series they come from, which appeared to be your point given your reactions to the characters I listed. The women of the Fast and the Furious franchise, minus Dame Helen Mirren, are all played as attractive, but they're also shown to be skilled in hand-to-hand combat and driving and are capable of handling their own in a fight. The franchise has incorporated more female characters over the years, and nobody has honestly had issue with them, if anything when people criticize those movies it is because of how over-the-top they have gotten when the original was trying to be sort-of grounded. Fish-out-of-water stories have existed before printed media, these kinds of screen stories are appropriate for characters like a Wonder Woman and an Alita because that is how their stories were originally told as in comic strip form. No man in the audience is threatened by them, they are impressed by them because of how they are written and performed for the screen, they are likeable warriors. She's not going around saying she can do a man's job better, and she isn't indestructible in combat, either. Neither a Mary Sue, nor a social justice warrior. Selene actually is seen as a strong female character in film, Kate Beckinsale does a lot of the heavy lifting in her performance though as the screenplays are not grade A quality though they do lay good character work for Selene. Still regarded as a good strong female character. Still regarded as a good strong female character. I have seen both films, and no they don't. The movies have progressive teachings regarding the preservation of culture and environment, but the female characters are not mouthpieces for social justice. Well, it's true, there are plenty of people are not white who often criticize wokeness in contemporary culture - i.e. Eric D. July, a musician who also produced a record selling independent comic book Isom. She wasn't unnecessary, Charlie is the one who discovers Bumblebee, wakes him up, becomes his introduction to Earth and the human race, and ultimately gives him his "voice" at the end. Before the announcement that there would be a Captain Marvel movie plenty of people did want Carol Danvers in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and were hoping it would be closer to her original line of books before DeConnick's major revamp. There was also requests for a Black Widow movie during Phase Two.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 19, 2023 5:22:31 GMT
Not necessarily, because very young children are easily impressionable, they may get the wrong idea and could become confused about their identity (transgenderism) and if they like someone does that mean they want to marry them? (homosexuality, pansexuality, bisexuality). A four-year-old girl telling their parent they want to suddenly be a boy and vice versa isn't going to sit well with very many parents, except for those that want to force that kind of thinking process onto them (which happens, there are parents who raise their boys like girls, and girls like boys, and make them wear clothing specific). I do not see why children of the age of four or younger really need to learn about subject matter they will not have any idea about till they get older, why is it wrong if they learn about certain things when they get into middle school? A child who likes to read doesn't need to get a copy of War and Peace and be expected to read it, a child who likes math doesn't need to be tasked to study The Riemann Hypothesis. I am not really seeing a huge rise in pansexuality and transgenderism, to be honest. In my neck of the woods, I have only met four or five people who were transgender in the last few years, and most couples I encounter are straight. California seems to have a pretty large population of people who identify as pansexual and transgender but despite the number of times they try to incorporate such concepts into their content they are all still seen as a small number of people compared to the rest of the population, who are straight and are fine with their gender. I don't see either being universally accepted, to be honest, because religious text describes both as being sinful and in some countries in the rest of the world they both go against established culture that people who practice it can see severe punishment. I see it all as hot topics for many years to come, to be honest. Young kids also think "I want to marry my brother/sister" because they don't understand what that means until later. Does it destroy their minds? No it doesn't. It's harmless.
If the parents get upset at a 4 year old saying something innocent like that, it says more about the parents instead of humoring the kid and realizing they're not really understanding.
If those kids choose to read those things, it's still their choice and it won't hurt them.
I've been seeing more and more of them, it weirded me out at first but then I realized it's just a new fact of life and accepted it. Same with Homosexual couples.
Religious Texts have been getting rewritten and redone by people for centuries, to fit their agenda. Meaning there's no way to know if that stuff is really sinful or not anymore.
It's still happening, whether the old folks like it or not.
That depends on the child and how they come to obtain the information. What one takes with the knowledge the other may not in the same exact way. These days such a comment isn't really seen as innocent, because there are parents who do embrace that sort of attitude and go as far as to allow their child to dress a certain way, take part in certain activities, and even pay for surgery to make it permanent, which can have a negative affect psychologically. A four-year-old shouldn't be expected to read War and Peace, though. It isn't a children's book (Missing my point). Good for you, but in my neck of the woods I haven't seen that many to come to the conclusion that the minority will become the majority not far ahead in time. The religious texts that have been preserved for centuries make it clear homosexuality, pansexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism are acts of sinful behavior, and because so many people are attached to them they try to preserve those beliefs in their upbringing and raising of families. It is easier said than done in a lot of places and cultures in the world, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 19, 2023 5:37:37 GMT
Yes, it does. By virtue of her surviving and not being a useless shrieking damsel and treating Reese better than anyone else she is. Those are progressive views.
Terminator is Anti-War, a progressive and thus SJW message.
And I pointed out how several really are, and how there are "justifications" for why the Injustice Warriors can't own up.
They're also all oversexualized male gaze characters who are still secondary to the men.
It's terrible, it's sexist and backwards and exploitative and it cripples anything good about Alita and WW. This innate sexism is precisely WHY men don't feel threatened by them.
And by virtue of not being a useless shrieking damsel who needs men to rescue her, she SJW. That's all it takes to be SJW now.
She's not, she's seen as a sex object more than a character. No different from Lara Croft.
She's secondary to Cruise, a sidekick.
She's secondary to Rick, a sidekick.
But they are, they fit the criteria. It's just more hypocrisy.
Not the way the majority of Injustice Warriors act.
She wasn't, she was pretty superfluous after a while. That's why she's tolerated more than Shia LaBoeuf's character, because she isn't important.
Oh yes they were. As soon as the movie was announced the "fans" were vehemently opposed. They hated the character for existing. It doesn't matter the run, they wanted NO version of her to be in the MCU.
Progressive? Perhaps, but that doesn't make her a social justice warrior. I wouldn't really describe The Terminator franchise as being anti-war, the movies focus on man versus machine and the first two are to make sure John Connor is safe because he is the leader of the human resistance should ever the machines wage war against the human species. There is always attempt to stop Judgment Day, but it is done through violent means. You didn't specify if the female characters had to be the lead of the films or television series they come from, which appeared to be your point given your reactions to the characters I listed. The women of the Fast and the Furious franchise, minus Dame Helen Mirren, are all played as attractive, but they're also shown to be skilled in hand-to-hand combat and driving and are capable of handling their own in a fight. The franchise has incorporated more female characters over the years, and nobody has honestly had issue with them, if anything when people criticize those movies it is because of how over-the-top they have gotten when the original was trying to be sort-of grounded. Fish-out-of-water stories have existed before printed media, these kinds of screen stories are appropriate for characters like a Wonder Woman and an Alita because that is how their stories were originally told as in comic strip form. No man in the audience is threatened by them, they are impressed by them because of how they are written and performed for the screen, they are likeable warriors. She's not going around saying she can do a man's job better, and she isn't indestructible in combat, either. Neither a Mary Sue, nor a social justice warrior. Selene actually is seen as a strong female character in film, Kate Beckinsale does a lot of the heavy lifting in her performance though as the screenplays are not grade A quality though they do lay good character work for Selene. Still regarded as a good strong female character. Still regarded as a good strong female character. I have seen both films, and no they don't. The movies have progressive teachings regarding the preservation of culture and environment, but the female characters are not mouthpieces for social justice. Well, it's true, there are plenty of people are not white who often criticize wokeness in contemporary culture - i.e. Eric D. July, a musician who also produced a record selling independent comic book Isom. She wasn't unnecessary, Charlie is the one who discovers Bumblebee, wakes him up, becomes his introduction to Earth and the human race, and ultimately gives him his "voice" at the end. Before the announcement that there would be a Captain Marvel movie plenty of people did want Carol Danvers in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and were hoping it would be closer to her original line of books before DeConnick's major revamp. There was also requests for a Black Widow movie during Phase Two. Anything not Hardcore Conservative = SJW. That's how it is today. Therefore, Progressive = SJW
The Terminator series was about Skynet, originally meant as a military system, turning on and nearly destroying Humanity and the resulting Robot War after. Therefore, War is Bad because look what it leads to. Same as how Planet of the Apes is Anti-War. The violent attempts at stopping things always is shown in a negative light.
Well, they do have to be leads. Secondary sidekick women are always in the shadow of the white male lead, which to Injustice Warriors is the only "Right" way for a woman to be.
They don't complain because none of the women threaten Dom's dominance.
Fish-out-of-Water isn't the same as that disgusting "Born Sexy Yesterday" cliche, which is what Wonder Woman and Alita both are. It undermines everything else about their characters with an old sexist trope.
She's shown as better in combat than men, and she shows she's better than male agents. So what, you need her to outright say things? Her actions make her an SJW character by virtue of not being a useless damsel.
Selene is seen as a hot lady in a black leather catsuit as opposed to a real character.
Good Strong, And a sidekick. Which undermines everything else.
Good strong, and a sidekick. Which undermines everything else.
So because the women don't specifically say anything, that makes them not SJW? Sorry, but if the movie has the message the characters are part of it. Therefore, SJW.
That's not that conspiracy Theorist Rippa, is he? He's only exploiting the anti-woke movement for easy $$$.
So she's there as a starter plot device, not a character.
Nope, there was no one asking for Captain Marvel. There were hopes she'd never ever show up and an outrage whenever there were hints she would. And Widow was also a Secondary woman rather than a lead so men couldn't feel threatened by her. That's how poorly the MCU treated women before.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 19, 2023 5:39:37 GMT
Young kids also think "I want to marry my brother/sister" because they don't understand what that means until later. Does it destroy their minds? No it doesn't. It's harmless.
If the parents get upset at a 4 year old saying something innocent like that, it says more about the parents instead of humoring the kid and realizing they're not really understanding.
If those kids choose to read those things, it's still their choice and it won't hurt them.
I've been seeing more and more of them, it weirded me out at first but then I realized it's just a new fact of life and accepted it. Same with Homosexual couples.
Religious Texts have been getting rewritten and redone by people for centuries, to fit their agenda. Meaning there's no way to know if that stuff is really sinful or not anymore.
It's still happening, whether the old folks like it or not.
That depends on the child and how they come to obtain the information. What one takes with the knowledge the other may not in the same exact way. These days such a comment isn't really seen as innocent, because there are parents who do embrace that sort of attitude and go as far as to allow their child to dress a certain way, take part in certain activities, and even pay for surgery to make it permanent, which can have a negative affect psychologically. A four-year-old shouldn't be expected to read War and Peace, though. It isn't a children's book (Missing my point). Good for you, but in my neck of the woods I haven't seen that many to come to the conclusion that the minority will become the majority not far ahead in time. The religious texts that have been preserved for centuries make it clear homosexuality, pansexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism are acts of sinful behavior, and because so many people are attached to them they try to preserve those beliefs in their upbringing and raising of families. It is easier said than done in a lot of places and cultures in the world, I'm afraid. It still won't destroy their minds. It just means they'll have more open minds going forward and question stuff more.
That's on the parents.
But they can still do it, and it won't hurt them.
Time will tell.
Nope, those were later interpretations. Nothing really states those things are sinful, not even the Sodom and Gomorrah story.
But no reason to stop trying.
|
|