|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 21, 2023 14:23:28 GMT
Maybe not, they aren't going to understand marriage and romance either but it doesn't stop kids shows from having those too. And kids dress up all the time so when they see someone doing in it a show they're not going to think its weird either.
It's not wrong, it's not wrong to close their minds at a young age either.
I have noticed it, I've seen how it's become more recognized and accepted over the last 20 years or so. And in relation to religion too.
Easier said than done, no excuse to do nothing.
Programming for four-year-olds or younger doesn't really touch base on marriage or romance, programming for slightly older children yes. Once again, I am talking about media targeted towards children who are not even in kindergarten yet. I am not talking about children of the age of eight or 10. I haven't seen a change in attitudes towards religion, not in the sense that the entire view of one text has been radically altered and pastors are going on apology tours asking for forgiveness of dated interpretation. I am not saying nothing shouldn't be done, I am saying accomplishing so isn't going to be as easy in other parts of the world. It still has those things, enough to have kids think about them. If that kind of stuff doesn't disturb them, then neither will subtly showing the neighbors in the show being 2 men or 2 women.
I have, we're seeing more and more scandals in various Churches and Popes being willing to be more tolerant and apologize for past offenses the Church have committed. It's slow but it's happening.
May not be easy, but it's happening.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 21, 2023 14:26:48 GMT
The people in the camps who wouldn't talk to Sam and Bucky, they said they needed stuff from the GRC and were abandoned until the Flag Smashers started giving them needed supplies.
It's better than using people and then throwing them away in camps to die when they're no longer "necessary". There's plenty of empty spaces that can be repurposed.
So ethnic cleansing is a better solution?
Those people were hoarding resources, not using them. That makes them complicit. The point was that the GRC did have resources but just didn't care enough to use them right. Luke didn't have a problem thinking "Oh well, there were probably people on the Death Star who didn't want to be there and I killed them."
The GRC Senator, he was the unreasonable one because he figured "Ugh, these foreigners infesting our country. Have to get rid of them, no matter what they did for us during the 5 years."
Again, I'm looking for actual quotes from the show. Right now you're just giving me your interpretation of what happened in the show. I mean, was there actually any proof that the GRC were hoarding supplies or is that simply Karli's justification for murder? Again, and I don't know how many times I need to repeat this before you understand it, Luke killed people who were clearly in the middle of trying to kill others. Karli killed people who were NOT in the middle of trying to kill others. Do you see the difference? As for having plenty of empty spaces that could be repurposed, what empty spaces? All the people who were blipped came back in the blink of an eye. All of a sudden you had millions of people who had no place to stay in. What empty spaces are you talking about that could have been repurposed to house millions of people? And you're still ignoring the fact that the government all of a sudden had to provide food and resources for double their population. The people in the camps said they needed supplies and got nothing. Then Karli finds perfectly good supplies being hoarded and tells the Guards so, the guards don't say anything like "We just got the stuff and were about to move it!", which means she wasn't wrong.
If they're guarding supplies that should have been used and weren't, they're a part of the process causing the camp people to die from the resource shortages.
We saw how empty the cities were in Endgame, it's not like they just tore down old buildings and cities during the 5 years. They could have put real effort into rebuilding but only cared about those who came back, not those who remained.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jan 21, 2023 19:22:01 GMT
Again, I'm looking for actual quotes from the show. Right now you're just giving me your interpretation of what happened in the show. I mean, was there actually any proof that the GRC were hoarding supplies or is that simply Karli's justification for murder? Again, and I don't know how many times I need to repeat this before you understand it, Luke killed people who were clearly in the middle of trying to kill others. Karli killed people who were NOT in the middle of trying to kill others. Do you see the difference? As for having plenty of empty spaces that could be repurposed, what empty spaces? All the people who were blipped came back in the blink of an eye. All of a sudden you had millions of people who had no place to stay in. What empty spaces are you talking about that could have been repurposed to house millions of people? And you're still ignoring the fact that the government all of a sudden had to provide food and resources for double their population. The people in the camps said they needed supplies and got nothing. Then Karli finds perfectly good supplies being hoarded and tells the Guards so, the guards don't say anything like "We just got the stuff and were about to move it!", which means she wasn't wrong.
If they're guarding supplies that should have been used and weren't, they're a part of the process causing the camp people to die from the resource shortages.
We saw how empty the cities were in Endgame, it's not like they just tore down old buildings and cities during the 5 years. They could have put real effort into rebuilding but only cared about those who came back, not those who remained.
If your population doubled overnight then there will obviously be issues feeding people. Not everyone will have food and some will definitely go hungry, maybe even die of hunger. Doesn't mean it was being done intentionally. Again, an impossible situation. And just because a food depot has stored food doesn't mean they're hoarding it. They're a food depot, of course they're supposed to have rations so they direct it to where it's supposed to go. Karli finding food stored in a depot isn't proof that they're hoarding it. Besides, if Karli's purpose was to feed people then she could have simply stole the food. She didn't need to kill the people in the building. Killing those people served no purpose and it definitely didn't stop other people from dying. In comparison let's pretend you're Luke Skywalker. Desthstar is about to destroy a planet and you have a shot to stop it by destroying the Deathstar. How exactly do you propose saving the people on the planet without killing the people on the Deathstar hmmm? As for Endgame, those "empty" cities were because of the blip when the population was halved. Karli's situation happened after the blip was reversed, when the population was doubled. Or did you not know this?
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 22, 2023 1:56:41 GMT
But the average four-year-old doesn't understand heterosexuality, they don't understand romance, their minds are too underdeveloped. Television and film writers in the pasty already proved that they can present mature topics of conversation in subtle ways, the Disney animated series Lloyd in Space had an episode where the boy characters and the female characters try to convince a sexless alien to decide their gender on the eve of their birthday, and in the end, they don't reveal a thing. It's a clever way to go about sexual identity because the character is an alien with a very simple design, and voice artist Pamela Adlon delivers the right amount of boy and girl in her vocal performance. Unfortunately, many of the writers for film and television lack the creativity and originality to produce something as clever or creative, and as a result you get something like the pride parade sequence from the recent Blue's Clues series. You can't really compare a progressive work from back then to today, and you can't really compare the filmmaking of them, either. Racial equality was something most people agreed with and saw racism as problematic in the country. Both movies handled the topic of race very effectively and created compelling dramas, and one was an original work while the other was a genuine adaptation of a novel. This argument honestly feels like you're trying to suggest all those in opposition of woke in media are bigoted, and it isn't a good look on you friend because you come across as ignorant and don't want anyone to change your worldview, which among other things suggests any person opposed to wokeness in culture can only be white, and that is just not the case per example of one Mr. Eric D. July. Being about those in service of the country doesn't make Top Gun: Maverick right-wing propaganda, and the movie at no point tells the viewer that they should register after the picture is over. You seem to ignore my comment about democratic politician Barack Obama being fond of the film, why is that? If you only meant leading female characters, then I don't see why you have decided to engage in discussing the merits of the mentioned characters in film and television when all you have have stated originally was you were referring to those that have led a motion picture. Instead, you have spent most of your time trying to debunk any merit that the mentioned have and are trying to perform what appear to be mental gymnastics to explain why people are fond of them, this includes the "Born Sexy Yesterday" argument which feels like a poor attempt in my opinion to discredit both Wonder Woman and Alita from Alita: Battle Angel and also paint those that like them and their source material (where their films are very close to in the basics) are either bad or ignorant. It is getting really ridiculous. Is the average 4 year old doesn't understand heterosexuality, then they shouldn't be exposed to the heterosexual stuff in kids programming. But they are, with no one complaining. If that happens, then there should either be a ban on heterosexual content in kids programming or those people are simply hypocrites. The Blue Clues "Controversy" being a prime example.
I can and I do make that comparison. Racism is still a big problem in society today, as much as people want to say otherwise. I've seen both films and both would be seen as "SJW Propaganda" and "Heavy Handed" if they came out today.
I do think that Injustice Warriors are Reactionaries, yes.
Eric D July isn't opposed to "Wokeness", he's just exploiting those who are to make $$$. It's just him being a part of Outrage Culture, like Alex Jones.
It glorifies the military, it doesn't show the Armed Forces as being in the wrong in anything they do and shows their Air Force stuff as cool looking. That Military Propaganda.
Obama also loves "The Wire", as left wing as a show can get. He never said WHY he likes Top Gun either, so for all we know it could be that he's a Tom Cruise fan. Until he does explain, it's superfluous.
You mentioned them, I brought up how they are actually all held back. And "Born Sexy Yesterday" is a valid stance to take against Wonder Woman and Alita.
Which still doesn't change that "fans" were up in arms the moment a Captain Marvel film was announced in the MCU, because the thought of a female lead who didn't start out as an oversexed secondary character simply repulsed them.
The average four-year-old isn't really exposed to heterosexuality in the programming intended for their demographic, to see a romantic storyline is rather rare a sight to see. TV-Y7 or TV-Y7-FV is generally where you start to see romance touched upon in media promoted for children. Heterosexuality is used as much because it has been the cultural norm for the majority of world history going back years, homosexuality, bisexuality, and pansexuality very much less so. Is it hypocritical that people are willing to allow one and not the other? Maybe, but that's how history has been like since cavemen times. Now, if we lived in a world where homosexuality, bisexuality, and pansexuality were the norm then indeed the presentation of heterosexuality in media might be seen as surprising and spark much conversation, but that's not the Earth we occupy in the known universe. No, I don't think you really can because not only were the storytellers of yesterday a lot more talented and understood the world and their audience better than the storytellers of today, the times are different now also. It isn't the 1960's, it is the 2020's, while racism is still an issue half a century later it is pretty much universally accepted that racism is bad and a person should be judged by character and not appearance, a story like Guess Who's Coming to Dinner plays best in the time period of its setting (which was modern then). The storytellers in charge of mainstream media today are not very talented and often create content that is polarizing amongst consumers, rather than be universally liked upon. There's a reason why after so many years the original The Twilight Zone is held in such high regard while later iterations are not, especially the latest version. The same is also true with franchises such as Star Trek. Most people who complain about woke in culture are not bigoted people, and there are plenty of them who are non-white, are female, and there are some who are not even politically conservative (i.e. the married pair of Clownfish TV and the crew behind Midnight's Edge). There are even some who are not even straight and are transgender (i.e. Blaire White). Eric D. July being honest or a grifter isn't relevant to the point I was getting at, which was to give example of one person who isn't white that complains about woke culture. I do not care about Alex Jones or am any bit interested in what the man does on a regular basis either, so your comparison means nothing to me. Calling a film like Top Gun: Maverick as military propaganda reads like your "Born Yesterday Today" argument - an attempt dismiss the work of any merit because you take issue with people finding the content any good. You also come across exactly like the people you criticize - dismissing media like the snap of two fingertips. My argument about Barack Obama liking Top Gun: Maverick is that the film can't be the heavy-duty conservative love-fest that you make it out to be, as he is a democratic politician. A lot of the filmmakers involved with the film don't lean right, either. I think the only confirmed filmmaker on that movie that is conservative might be producer Jerry Bruckheimer, but that's really it. All you had to say was "I was referring to leading female characters" and that would have saved much time and energy. I don't really recall seeing anyone make such comments, maybe on YouTube or random social media sites but they all read like troll comments made by people who wanted to get a rise out of others.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 22, 2023 2:01:57 GMT
Programming for four-year-olds or younger doesn't really touch base on marriage or romance, programming for slightly older children yes. Once again, I am talking about media targeted towards children who are not even in kindergarten yet. I am not talking about children of the age of eight or 10. I haven't seen a change in attitudes towards religion, not in the sense that the entire view of one text has been radically altered and pastors are going on apology tours asking for forgiveness of dated interpretation. I am not saying nothing shouldn't be done, I am saying accomplishing so isn't going to be as easy in other parts of the world. It still has those things, enough to have kids think about them. If that kind of stuff doesn't disturb them, then neither will subtly showing the neighbors in the show being 2 men or 2 women.
I have, we're seeing more and more scandals in various Churches and Popes being willing to be more tolerant and apologize for past offenses the Church have committed. It's slow but it's happening.
May not be easy, but it's happening.
They don't highlight the romance of the two parental figures in the programming to really make the child viewer curious about them. Romance tends to be integrated into more "big kid" programming from TV-Y to TV-Y7-FV. I was referring to what religious texts speak on homosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality, and transgenderism.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 22, 2023 15:06:08 GMT
The people in the camps said they needed supplies and got nothing. Then Karli finds perfectly good supplies being hoarded and tells the Guards so, the guards don't say anything like "We just got the stuff and were about to move it!", which means she wasn't wrong.
If they're guarding supplies that should have been used and weren't, they're a part of the process causing the camp people to die from the resource shortages.
We saw how empty the cities were in Endgame, it's not like they just tore down old buildings and cities during the 5 years. They could have put real effort into rebuilding but only cared about those who came back, not those who remained.
If your population doubled overnight then there will obviously be issues feeding people. Not everyone will have food and some will definitely go hungry, maybe even die of hunger. Doesn't mean it was being done intentionally. Again, an impossible situation. And just because a food depot has stored food doesn't mean they're hoarding it. They're a food depot, of course they're supposed to have rations so they direct it to where it's supposed to go. Karli finding food stored in a depot isn't proof that they're hoarding it. Besides, if Karli's purpose was to feed people then she could have simply stole the food. She didn't need to kill the people in the building. Killing those people served no purpose and it definitely didn't stop other people from dying. In comparison let's pretend you're Luke Skywalker. Desthstar is about to destroy a planet and you have a shot to stop it by destroying the Deathstar. How exactly do you propose saving the people on the planet without killing the people on the Deathstar hmmm? As for Endgame, those "empty" cities were because of the blip when the population was halved. Karli's situation happened after the blip was reversed, when the population was doubled. Or did you not know this? If that were true, then there'd be no stockpiled food in that GRC Base. There was. The guards don't even try to disagree with Karli when she says "You had this for months and did nothing".
Yes and this was the point where it was made clear she was going too extreme. Just like how we agreed with the Riddler in "The Batman" until we found out his final plan was to flood the city and kill innocent people.
I'd at least think to myself "Wow, if I do this I'll be killing a LOT of people who really aren't bad guys and are on that thing reluctantly...but if I don't then millions will still die." as opposed to not think about it at all.
Yes and those cities being as empty as they were meant that there would have been places to resettle those who Remained after the Blip if the GRC had actually cared.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 22, 2023 15:19:53 GMT
Is the average 4 year old doesn't understand heterosexuality, then they shouldn't be exposed to the heterosexual stuff in kids programming. But they are, with no one complaining. If that happens, then there should either be a ban on heterosexual content in kids programming or those people are simply hypocrites. The Blue Clues "Controversy" being a prime example.
I can and I do make that comparison. Racism is still a big problem in society today, as much as people want to say otherwise. I've seen both films and both would be seen as "SJW Propaganda" and "Heavy Handed" if they came out today.
I do think that Injustice Warriors are Reactionaries, yes.
Eric D July isn't opposed to "Wokeness", he's just exploiting those who are to make $$$. It's just him being a part of Outrage Culture, like Alex Jones.
It glorifies the military, it doesn't show the Armed Forces as being in the wrong in anything they do and shows their Air Force stuff as cool looking. That Military Propaganda.
Obama also loves "The Wire", as left wing as a show can get. He never said WHY he likes Top Gun either, so for all we know it could be that he's a Tom Cruise fan. Until he does explain, it's superfluous.
You mentioned them, I brought up how they are actually all held back. And "Born Sexy Yesterday" is a valid stance to take against Wonder Woman and Alita.
Which still doesn't change that "fans" were up in arms the moment a Captain Marvel film was announced in the MCU, because the thought of a female lead who didn't start out as an oversexed secondary character simply repulsed them.
The average four-year-old isn't really exposed to heterosexuality in the programming intended for their demographic, to see a romantic storyline is rather rare a sight to see. TV-Y7 or TV-Y7-FV is generally where you start to see romance touched upon in media promoted for children. Heterosexuality is used as much because it has been the cultural norm for the majority of world history going back years, homosexuality, bisexuality, and pansexuality very much less so. Is it hypocritical that people are willing to allow one and not the other? Maybe, but that's how history has been like since cavemen times. Now, if we lived in a world where homosexuality, bisexuality, and pansexuality were the norm then indeed the presentation of heterosexuality in media might be seen as surprising and spark much conversation, but that's not the Earth we occupy in the known universe. No, I don't think you really can because not only were the storytellers of yesterday a lot more talented and understood the world and their audience better than the storytellers of today, the times are different now also. It isn't the 1960's, it is the 2020's, while racism is still an issue half a century later it is pretty much universally accepted that racism is bad and a person should be judged by character and not appearance, a story like Guess Who's Coming to Dinner plays best in the time period of its setting (which was modern then). The storytellers in charge of mainstream media today are not very talented and often create content that is polarizing amongst consumers, rather than be universally liked upon. There's a reason why after so many years the original The Twilight Zone is held in such high regard while later iterations are not, especially the latest version. The same is also true with franchises such as Star Trek. Most people who complain about woke in culture are not bigoted people, and there are plenty of them who are non-white, are female, and there are some who are not even politically conservative (i.e. the married pair of Clownfish TV and the crew behind Midnight's Edge). There are even some who are not even straight and are transgender (i.e. Blaire White). Eric D. July being honest or a grifter isn't relevant to the point I was getting at, which was to give example of one person who isn't white that complains about woke culture. I do not care about Alex Jones or am any bit interested in what the man does on a regular basis either, so your comparison means nothing to me. Calling a film like Top Gun: Maverick as military propaganda reads like your "Born Yesterday Today" argument - an attempt dismiss the work of any merit because you take issue with people finding the content any good. You also come across exactly like the people you criticize - dismissing media like the snap of two fingertips. My argument about Barack Obama liking Top Gun: Maverick is that the film can't be the heavy-duty conservative love-fest that you make it out to be, as he is a democratic politician. A lot of the filmmakers involved with the film don't lean right, either. I think the only confirmed filmmaker on that movie that is conservative might be producer Jerry Bruckheimer, but that's really it. All you had to say was "I was referring to leading female characters" and that would have saved much time and energy. I don't really recall seeing anyone make such comments, maybe on YouTube or random social media sites but they all read like troll comments made by people who wanted to get a rise out of others. So you admit that there is an element of hypocrisy to it.
Those things are becoming more apparent and a part of everyday life, we're in a transition. It's not different from how 60 years ago seeing mixed race couples was seen as "Degenerate" and "Concerned Parents" complained. Until it became normal and decent people stopped complaining.
I sat down and watched "In the Heat of the Night" again recently, a lot of stuff in it would immediately get it labeled as SJW, anti-white propaganda if it came out now. The only reason things are polarizing now is because, over the last 15 years, Reactionary elements have become more pronounced and attractive to outdated elements of modern society.
Eric July being a Grifter is entirely relevant (same with those others you listed), it simply shows they have no real integrity and just go with whatever they know will get them clicks, subs, patreon supporters and easy $$$ whether or not they actually believe anything they present. Alex Jones is the blueprint for all of them.
If the Injustice Warriors are going to write off anything with nonwhites, nonhets and women as immediately "SJW" or "Degenerate" or "Checking a Box" without knowing anything about the actual content, then we have the right to actually bother seeing a Military Propaganda film, analyze it for what it is and say so.
Which doesn't change it's a Military Propaganda film, and thus Right Wing.
Well, sorry.
There was enough of a response to show it was more to it than that.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 22, 2023 15:21:23 GMT
It still has those things, enough to have kids think about them. If that kind of stuff doesn't disturb them, then neither will subtly showing the neighbors in the show being 2 men or 2 women.
I have, we're seeing more and more scandals in various Churches and Popes being willing to be more tolerant and apologize for past offenses the Church have committed. It's slow but it's happening.
May not be easy, but it's happening.
They don't highlight the romance of the two parental figures in the programming to really make the child viewer curious about them. Romance tends to be integrated into more "big kid" programming from TV-Y to TV-Y7-FV. I was referring to what religious texts speak on homosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality, and transgenderism. If they see the parents together and happy, it's enough to get a kid curious about them.
And those texts are the ones that have been "revised" or the original message was deliberately misinterpreted by Reactionaries, like the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jan 22, 2023 17:38:24 GMT
If your population doubled overnight then there will obviously be issues feeding people. Not everyone will have food and some will definitely go hungry, maybe even die of hunger. Doesn't mean it was being done intentionally. Again, an impossible situation. And just because a food depot has stored food doesn't mean they're hoarding it. They're a food depot, of course they're supposed to have rations so they direct it to where it's supposed to go. Karli finding food stored in a depot isn't proof that they're hoarding it. Besides, if Karli's purpose was to feed people then she could have simply stole the food. She didn't need to kill the people in the building. Killing those people served no purpose and it definitely didn't stop other people from dying. In comparison let's pretend you're Luke Skywalker. Desthstar is about to destroy a planet and you have a shot to stop it by destroying the Deathstar. How exactly do you propose saving the people on the planet without killing the people on the Deathstar hmmm? As for Endgame, those "empty" cities were because of the blip when the population was halved. Karli's situation happened after the blip was reversed, when the population was doubled. Or did you not know this? If that were true, then there'd be no stockpiled food in that GRC Base. There was. The guards don't even try to disagree with Karli when she says "You had this for months and did nothing".
Yes and this was the point where it was made clear she was going too extreme. Just like how we agreed with the Riddler in "The Batman" until we found out his final plan was to flood the city and kill innocent people.
I'd at least think to myself "Wow, if I do this I'll be killing a LOT of people who really aren't bad guys and are on that thing reluctantly...but if I don't then millions will still die." as opposed to not think about it at all.
Yes and those cities being as empty as they were meant that there would have been places to resettle those who Remained after the Blip if the GRC had actually cared.
I'm not asking you what you'd be thinking if you were Luke, I'm asking what you'd do. So again, what would you do if you were Luke and the Death Star was about to kill a planet? Because I know Karli didn't need to kill those people in order to get the food. And that's what makes them different. Luke killed out of necessity, Karli killed out of spite. And again, what empty cities? The cities seemed empty because half of the population got blipped away. If the blip was reverted then they would have come back, except this time you had the added population of millions of immigrants. Those cities would have no longer seemed empty and even worse, they'd have been completely overpopulated in the blink of an eye. As for having food in the storage center, well yes, that's how good logistics is handled. Even when you're short on supply, you try to keep just a bit of stock in reserve for emergency purposes. The guards aren't the most knowledgeable on the logistic process nor do they own Karli an explanation. Them not disagreeing with Karli is proof of nothing. That's like saying if I shouted at the top of my voice that I can fly and nobody voiced a disagreement, then that proves I can actually fly. That's not exactly how proof works.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 22, 2023 19:55:25 GMT
If that were true, then there'd be no stockpiled food in that GRC Base. There was. The guards don't even try to disagree with Karli when she says "You had this for months and did nothing".
Yes and this was the point where it was made clear she was going too extreme. Just like how we agreed with the Riddler in "The Batman" until we found out his final plan was to flood the city and kill innocent people.
I'd at least think to myself "Wow, if I do this I'll be killing a LOT of people who really aren't bad guys and are on that thing reluctantly...but if I don't then millions will still die." as opposed to not think about it at all.
Yes and those cities being as empty as they were meant that there would have been places to resettle those who Remained after the Blip if the GRC had actually cared.
I'm not asking you what you'd be thinking if you were Luke, I'm asking what you'd do. So again, what would you do if you were Luke and the Death Star was about to kill a planet? Because I know Karli didn't need to kill those people in order to get the food. And that's what makes them different. Luke killed out of necessity, Karli killed out of spite. And again, what empty cities? The cities seemed empty because half of the population got blipped away. If the blip was reverted then they would have come back, except this time you had the added population of millions of immigrants. Those cities would have no longer seemed empty and even worse, they'd have been completely overpopulated in the blink of an eye. As for having food in the storage center, well yes, that's how good logistics is handled. Even when you're short on supply, you try to keep just a bit of stock in reserve for emergency purposes. The guards aren't the most knowledgeable on the logistic process nor do they own Karli an explanation. Them not disagreeing with Karli is proof of nothing. That's like saying if I shouted at the top of my voice that I can fly and nobody voiced a disagreement, then that proves I can actually fly. That's not exactly how proof works. I'd do it, I just wouldn't think "Everyone on the Death Star deserved to die and so does everyone else who gets killed by the Rebels."
And it was made clear it was wrong of her to do so, just like the Riddler turned out to be wrong when he did so at the end of The Batman. That doesn't mean the Flag Smashers mission was wrong.
And once the people came back, there's lots of formerly empty spaces they can be put into. But the GRC didn't even attempt to try a real resettlement, that's the problem.
Them not saying "We didn't know about the food stored here! We're not responsible for the famine killing your people!" means they didn't have any real counter to her saying "You kept the food here for months and weren't going to do anything with it."
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jan 22, 2023 20:36:34 GMT
I'm not asking you what you'd be thinking if you were Luke, I'm asking what you'd do. So again, what would you do if you were Luke and the Death Star was about to kill a planet? Because I know Karli didn't need to kill those people in order to get the food. And that's what makes them different. Luke killed out of necessity, Karli killed out of spite. And again, what empty cities? The cities seemed empty because half of the population got blipped away. If the blip was reverted then they would have come back, except this time you had the added population of millions of immigrants. Those cities would have no longer seemed empty and even worse, they'd have been completely overpopulated in the blink of an eye. As for having food in the storage center, well yes, that's how good logistics is handled. Even when you're short on supply, you try to keep just a bit of stock in reserve for emergency purposes. The guards aren't the most knowledgeable on the logistic process nor do they own Karli an explanation. Them not disagreeing with Karli is proof of nothing. That's like saying if I shouted at the top of my voice that I can fly and nobody voiced a disagreement, then that proves I can actually fly. That's not exactly how proof works. I'd do it, I just wouldn't think "Everyone on the Death Star deserved to die and so does everyone else who gets killed by the Rebels."
And it was made clear it was wrong of her to do so, just like the Riddler turned out to be wrong when he did so at the end of The Batman. That doesn't mean the Flag Smashers mission was wrong.
And once the people came back, there's lots of formerly empty spaces they can be put into. But the GRC didn't even attempt to try a real resettlement, that's the problem.
Them not saying "We didn't know about the food stored here! We're not responsible for the famine killing your people!" means they didn't have any real counter to her saying "You kept the food here for months and weren't going to do anything with it."
We're not given an internal monologue to Luke's thoughts, so he could have very well been thinking those thoughts. You can't really claim to know what he was thinking one way or another. What we do see are his actions, and bottom line is that you seem to be agreeing that what Karli did was wrong whereas Luke had no other option. In other words, you yourself agree that Karli and Luke are not in the same position yes? We're not talking about the Flagsmashers, we're talking about Karli in particular. As for the guards, like I said they most likely aren't privy to the logistics process. They're guards. Do you think bank guards know exactly what kind of valuables are contained in a bank? But just because the guards didn't know doesn't mean that anything fishy was going on. Because again, you're basing all of this on what Karli was saying, and she isn't exactly the most objective person regarding this point. And no, once people came back there were no longer any free spaces. I don't know why this concept is so hard for you to grasp. Here, let me simplify it for you. Let's say you had an apartment building built to house 100 people. One day, 50 of them suddenly disappeared. In the next few years, 30 new people moved into those units formerly belonging to the missing 50, so now you have a total population of 80 in the building. You think there's still extra space since it was built to house 100 right? But then one day the missing 50 suddenly come back, and now you have 130 people trying to live in a building only meant to house 100. They're clearly overpopulated at this point. Where exactly is the extra space that you insist exists?
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 23, 2023 1:13:18 GMT
I'd do it, I just wouldn't think "Everyone on the Death Star deserved to die and so does everyone else who gets killed by the Rebels."
And it was made clear it was wrong of her to do so, just like the Riddler turned out to be wrong when he did so at the end of The Batman. That doesn't mean the Flag Smashers mission was wrong.
And once the people came back, there's lots of formerly empty spaces they can be put into. But the GRC didn't even attempt to try a real resettlement, that's the problem.
Them not saying "We didn't know about the food stored here! We're not responsible for the famine killing your people!" means they didn't have any real counter to her saying "You kept the food here for months and weren't going to do anything with it."
We're not given an internal monologue to Luke's thoughts, so he could have very well been thinking those thoughts. You can't really claim to know what he was thinking one way or another. What we do see are his actions, and bottom line is that you seem to be agreeing that what Karli did was wrong whereas Luke had no other option. In other words, you yourself agree that Karli and Luke are not in the same position yes? We're not talking about the Flagsmashers, we're talking about Karli in particular. As for the guards, like I said they most likely aren't privy to the logistics process. They're guards. Do you think bank guards know exactly what kind of valuables are contained in a bank? But just because the guards didn't know doesn't mean that anything fishy was going on. Because again, you're basing all of this on what Karli was saying, and she isn't exactly the most objective person regarding this point. And no, once people came back there were no longer any free spaces. I don't know why this concept is so hard for you to grasp. Here, let me simplify it for you. Let's say you had an apartment building built to house 100 people. One day, 50 of them suddenly disappeared. In the next few years, 30 new people moved into those units formerly belonging to the missing 50, so now you have a total population of 80 in the building. You think there's still extra space since it was built to house 100 right? But then one day the missing 50 suddenly come back, and now you have 130 people trying to live in a building only meant to house 100. They're clearly overpopulated at this point. Where exactly is the extra space that you insist exists? Luke barely cared his Uncle and Aunt who raised him died. Based on that, he wouldn't care about the noncombatants he killed either.
Not the same, but the amount of hate Karli gets is rather silly in comparison.
I'm talking about them as a whole, including Karli who went bad.
They'd have some knowledge, yes. They don't try to defend themselves either or their actions which says a lot.
Endgame showed how empty much of the country still was, so they didn't use up all the extra space during the 5 years meaning there was still room to house the restored population. And there was enough money and resources to build new homes too. But the GRC didn't bother.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jan 23, 2023 1:37:34 GMT
We're not given an internal monologue to Luke's thoughts, so he could have very well been thinking those thoughts. You can't really claim to know what he was thinking one way or another. What we do see are his actions, and bottom line is that you seem to be agreeing that what Karli did was wrong whereas Luke had no other option. In other words, you yourself agree that Karli and Luke are not in the same position yes? We're not talking about the Flagsmashers, we're talking about Karli in particular. As for the guards, like I said they most likely aren't privy to the logistics process. They're guards. Do you think bank guards know exactly what kind of valuables are contained in a bank? But just because the guards didn't know doesn't mean that anything fishy was going on. Because again, you're basing all of this on what Karli was saying, and she isn't exactly the most objective person regarding this point. And no, once people came back there were no longer any free spaces. I don't know why this concept is so hard for you to grasp. Here, let me simplify it for you. Let's say you had an apartment building built to house 100 people. One day, 50 of them suddenly disappeared. In the next few years, 30 new people moved into those units formerly belonging to the missing 50, so now you have a total population of 80 in the building. You think there's still extra space since it was built to house 100 right? But then one day the missing 50 suddenly come back, and now you have 130 people trying to live in a building only meant to house 100. They're clearly overpopulated at this point. Where exactly is the extra space that you insist exists? Luke barely cared his Uncle and Aunt who raised him died. Based on that, he wouldn't care about the noncombatants he killed either.
Not the same, but the amount of hate Karli gets is rather silly in comparison.
I'm talking about them as a whole, including Karli who went bad.
They'd have some knowledge, yes. They don't try to defend themselves either or their actions which says a lot.
Endgame showed how empty much of the country still was, so they didn't use up all the extra space during the 5 years meaning there was still room to house the restored population. And there was enough money and resources to build new homes too. But the GRC didn't bother.
You're conveniently side-stepping my question. What would you do if you had 130 occupants in a building that was only meant to house 100? Refering to Endgame is not helping your argument, since Endgame showed what the world looked like when it had half its population blipped away. The fact that you keep referring to it shows that you don't understand the repercussions of having half the population come back. I'm talking specifically about Luke and Karli, whom you earlier claimed were no different from each other. You admitted that Karli was wrong to have killed those innocent people in the stash depot. Now let me ask you, do you believe Luke was also wrong to have destroyed the Deathstar while it was in the middle of trying to kill an entire planet?
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 23, 2023 7:43:38 GMT
They don't highlight the romance of the two parental figures in the programming to really make the child viewer curious about them. Romance tends to be integrated into more "big kid" programming from TV-Y to TV-Y7-FV. I was referring to what religious texts speak on homosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality, and transgenderism. If they see the parents together and happy, it's enough to get a kid curious about them.
And those texts are the ones that have been "revised" or the original message was deliberately misinterpreted by Reactionaries, like the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Most programming intended for children four and younger focus on the titular characters learning very basic math, science, history, health, and problem solving. The roles of the parents are kept in the background and their function is to generally serve as a voice of reason and offer advice on occasion, they don't traditionally go very far with the parental figures. I have agreed religious texts have been both misinterpreted and altered over the years, I am just saying that certain things in them have been the cultural norm for a very long time that major change won't be easy in some parts of the world. I am not discouraging anyone from trying to, I am just saying that to change perception isn't going to be a walk in the park in some places.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 23, 2023 8:17:16 GMT
The average four-year-old isn't really exposed to heterosexuality in the programming intended for their demographic, to see a romantic storyline is rather rare a sight to see. TV-Y7 or TV-Y7-FV is generally where you start to see romance touched upon in media promoted for children. Heterosexuality is used as much because it has been the cultural norm for the majority of world history going back years, homosexuality, bisexuality, and pansexuality very much less so. Is it hypocritical that people are willing to allow one and not the other? Maybe, but that's how history has been like since cavemen times. Now, if we lived in a world where homosexuality, bisexuality, and pansexuality were the norm then indeed the presentation of heterosexuality in media might be seen as surprising and spark much conversation, but that's not the Earth we occupy in the known universe. No, I don't think you really can because not only were the storytellers of yesterday a lot more talented and understood the world and their audience better than the storytellers of today, the times are different now also. It isn't the 1960's, it is the 2020's, while racism is still an issue half a century later it is pretty much universally accepted that racism is bad and a person should be judged by character and not appearance, a story like Guess Who's Coming to Dinner plays best in the time period of its setting (which was modern then). The storytellers in charge of mainstream media today are not very talented and often create content that is polarizing amongst consumers, rather than be universally liked upon. There's a reason why after so many years the original The Twilight Zone is held in such high regard while later iterations are not, especially the latest version. The same is also true with franchises such as Star Trek. Most people who complain about woke in culture are not bigoted people, and there are plenty of them who are non-white, are female, and there are some who are not even politically conservative (i.e. the married pair of Clownfish TV and the crew behind Midnight's Edge). There are even some who are not even straight and are transgender (i.e. Blaire White). Eric D. July being honest or a grifter isn't relevant to the point I was getting at, which was to give example of one person who isn't white that complains about woke culture. I do not care about Alex Jones or am any bit interested in what the man does on a regular basis either, so your comparison means nothing to me. Calling a film like Top Gun: Maverick as military propaganda reads like your "Born Yesterday Today" argument - an attempt dismiss the work of any merit because you take issue with people finding the content any good. You also come across exactly like the people you criticize - dismissing media like the snap of two fingertips. My argument about Barack Obama liking Top Gun: Maverick is that the film can't be the heavy-duty conservative love-fest that you make it out to be, as he is a democratic politician. A lot of the filmmakers involved with the film don't lean right, either. I think the only confirmed filmmaker on that movie that is conservative might be producer Jerry Bruckheimer, but that's really it. All you had to say was "I was referring to leading female characters" and that would have saved much time and energy. I don't really recall seeing anyone make such comments, maybe on YouTube or random social media sites but they all read like troll comments made by people who wanted to get a rise out of others. So you admit that there is an element of hypocrisy to it.
Those things are becoming more apparent and a part of everyday life, we're in a transition. It's not different from how 60 years ago seeing mixed race couples was seen as "Degenerate" and "Concerned Parents" complained. Until it became normal and decent people stopped complaining.
I sat down and watched "In the Heat of the Night" again recently, a lot of stuff in it would immediately get it labeled as SJW, anti-white propaganda if it came out now. The only reason things are polarizing now is because, over the last 15 years, Reactionary elements have become more pronounced and attractive to outdated elements of modern society.
Eric July being a Grifter is entirely relevant (same with those others you listed), it simply shows they have no real integrity and just go with whatever they know will get them clicks, subs, patreon supporters and easy $$$ whether or not they actually believe anything they present. Alex Jones is the blueprint for all of them.
If the Injustice Warriors are going to write off anything with nonwhites, nonhets and women as immediately "SJW" or "Degenerate" or "Checking a Box" without knowing anything about the actual content, then we have the right to actually bother seeing a Military Propaganda film, analyze it for what it is and say so.
Which doesn't change it's a Military Propaganda film, and thus Right Wing.
Well, sorry.
There was enough of a response to show it was more to it than that.
Maybe I do, but that is in regards towards media intended for older viewers. You are coming from this at an emotional perspective, I am coming from it by an artistic one. The storytellers of today are not as talented as the ones from when both of those films were made, and therefore can only produce works that are polarizing and fail the cause they wish to support. You can speculate as much as you wish, but your argument can only go so far, it remains a fallacy. It isn't relevant because the debate was not about if the people in question are being authentic or performing an act, you gave the strong suggestion that people arguing against woke in culture are only white, and I gave an example of a person who is not white and takes issue with woke in culture. At this point though I have to ask where this narrative of such people being scam artists comes from, as they appear to genuinely believe the things that they say, and they appear to promise exactly what the donations made towards their content are for - Mr. July produced his own comic book and sold it well to his fans. As for Alex Jones, I don't know enough, nor do I care enough about him to really have an opinion to make, so your argument about him being their blueprint means nothing to me. Not very good logic there, friend. Someone really likes their fallacies. Apology accepted. If you say so.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jan 23, 2023 19:14:01 GMT
If they see the parents together and happy, it's enough to get a kid curious about them.
And those texts are the ones that have been "revised" or the original message was deliberately misinterpreted by Reactionaries, like the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Most programming intended for children four and younger focus on the titular characters learning very basic math, science, history, health, and problem solving. The roles of the parents are kept in the background and their function is to generally serve as a voice of reason and offer advice on occasion, they don't traditionally go very far with the parental figures. I have agreed religious texts have been both misinterpreted and altered over the years, I am just saying that certain things in them have been the cultural norm for a very long time that major change won't be easy in some parts of the world. I am not discouraging anyone from trying to, I am just saying that to change perception isn't going to be a walk in the park in some places. Just like to add here that there are many things that aren't included in children's shows not because they're bad but simply because they're too complex for children to properly understand. Children's shows only include some of the most basic aspects of human life. Children's shows might include addition and subtraction, maybe even multiplication and division, but they definitely won't be tackling algebra and calculus. They might showcase a couple sharing a kiss or two but they don't go into showing all the different variations of sexual contact. They might show a superhero fighting crime but they don't delve into the nuances of vigilanteism or of how the justice system deals with various types of criminals. So in the case of parents, the most basic (and most common) representation of parents is the father and mother. When it comes to couples the most basic coupling is a man and a woman. There may be different variations to this (father+father, mother+mother, father+multiple wives, mother+multiple husbands, polyamorous couples, etc.) but those are way too complex to start handing out in kids' shows. It doesn't mean that those things are bad, it just means that there's complexities in it that needs an older mind to make sense of. Children will eventually learn that when they get older, much in the same way we learn other more complex things when we get older.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 24, 2023 1:19:43 GMT
Luke barely cared his Uncle and Aunt who raised him died. Based on that, he wouldn't care about the noncombatants he killed either.
Not the same, but the amount of hate Karli gets is rather silly in comparison.
I'm talking about them as a whole, including Karli who went bad.
They'd have some knowledge, yes. They don't try to defend themselves either or their actions which says a lot.
Endgame showed how empty much of the country still was, so they didn't use up all the extra space during the 5 years meaning there was still room to house the restored population. And there was enough money and resources to build new homes too. But the GRC didn't bother.
You're conveniently side-stepping my question. What would you do if you had 130 occupants in a building that was only meant to house 100? Refering to Endgame is not helping your argument, since Endgame showed what the world looked like when it had half its population blipped away. The fact that you keep referring to it shows that you don't understand the repercussions of having half the population come back. I'm talking specifically about Luke and Karli, whom you earlier claimed were no different from each other. You admitted that Karli was wrong to have killed those innocent people in the stash depot. Now let me ask you, do you believe Luke was also wrong to have destroyed the Deathstar while it was in the middle of trying to kill an entire planet? I'd tell the 130 people that "Sorry, but I won't kick out these other people. You're all going to have to learn to share and co-exist until we can expand the place" instead of "I don't care if you worked your butts off to maintain this building, I'm throwing 30 of you out to die in the cold and I'm taking away all your food and clothes too."
It shows that even 5 years later the planet still had empty abandoned places, places prime for re-settlement for the Returned.
They weren't innocent people, they were complicit in the GRC's plans. I do think that Luke was in a tough spot and made a hard choice, pity he didn't think much about it.
They're both killers, at the end of the day. One had it a bit easier than the other. I suppose if the GRC all wore Nazi-Esque Uniforms and spoke with British Accents it would be easier to dislike them.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 24, 2023 1:20:45 GMT
If they see the parents together and happy, it's enough to get a kid curious about them.
And those texts are the ones that have been "revised" or the original message was deliberately misinterpreted by Reactionaries, like the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Most programming intended for children four and younger focus on the titular characters learning very basic math, science, history, health, and problem solving. The roles of the parents are kept in the background and their function is to generally serve as a voice of reason and offer advice on occasion, they don't traditionally go very far with the parental figures. I have agreed religious texts have been both misinterpreted and altered over the years, I am just saying that certain things in them have been the cultural norm for a very long time that major change won't be easy in some parts of the world. I am not discouraging anyone from trying to, I am just saying that to change perception isn't going to be a walk in the park in some places. And what about the single parent kids who watch and wonder why there's a man or woman living with the parent and asks their 1 parent about it? It's no different.
It's not easy, it still has to happen.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 24, 2023 1:25:42 GMT
So you admit that there is an element of hypocrisy to it.
Those things are becoming more apparent and a part of everyday life, we're in a transition. It's not different from how 60 years ago seeing mixed race couples was seen as "Degenerate" and "Concerned Parents" complained. Until it became normal and decent people stopped complaining.
I sat down and watched "In the Heat of the Night" again recently, a lot of stuff in it would immediately get it labeled as SJW, anti-white propaganda if it came out now. The only reason things are polarizing now is because, over the last 15 years, Reactionary elements have become more pronounced and attractive to outdated elements of modern society.
Eric July being a Grifter is entirely relevant (same with those others you listed), it simply shows they have no real integrity and just go with whatever they know will get them clicks, subs, patreon supporters and easy $$$ whether or not they actually believe anything they present. Alex Jones is the blueprint for all of them.
If the Injustice Warriors are going to write off anything with nonwhites, nonhets and women as immediately "SJW" or "Degenerate" or "Checking a Box" without knowing anything about the actual content, then we have the right to actually bother seeing a Military Propaganda film, analyze it for what it is and say so.
Which doesn't change it's a Military Propaganda film, and thus Right Wing.
Well, sorry.
There was enough of a response to show it was more to it than that.
Maybe I do, but that is in regards towards media intended for older viewers. You are coming from this at an emotional perspective, I am coming from it by an artistic one. The storytellers of today are not as talented as the ones from when both of those films were made, and therefore can only produce works that are polarizing and fail the cause they wish to support. You can speculate as much as you wish, but your argument can only go so far, it remains a fallacy. It isn't relevant because the debate was not about if the people in question are being authentic or performing an act, you gave the strong suggestion that people arguing against woke in culture are only white, and I gave an example of a person who is not white and takes issue with woke in culture. At this point though I have to ask where this narrative of such people being scam artists comes from, as they appear to genuinely believe the things that they say, and they appear to promise exactly what the donations made towards their content are for - Mr. July produced his own comic book and sold it well to his fans. As for Alex Jones, I don't know enough, nor do I care enough about him to really have an opinion to make, so your argument about him being their blueprint means nothing to me. Not very good logic there, friend. Someone really likes their fallacies. Apology accepted. If you say so. It happens in younger media, therefore the complaints are hypocrisy.
Nah, the only difference now is how "fans" have become more close minded and see everything as a nonexistent "Culture War" if it dares to be anything outside the box. Those older movies would be ripped apart today.
I don't have to speculate, it's plain as day what would happen.
The ones you brought up don't care about what is "Woke" and what isn't, they're just using that as an excuse for Subs and easy $$$. You saying they seem to believe what they say shows you fell for their scam.
Research Alex Jones then, you'll get it.
It's called fighting fire with fire, see how they like it.
Military Propaganda is inherently right-wing.
Yes.
I do say so.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jan 24, 2023 1:35:04 GMT
You're conveniently side-stepping my question. What would you do if you had 130 occupants in a building that was only meant to house 100? Refering to Endgame is not helping your argument, since Endgame showed what the world looked like when it had half its population blipped away. The fact that you keep referring to it shows that you don't understand the repercussions of having half the population come back. I'm talking specifically about Luke and Karli, whom you earlier claimed were no different from each other. You admitted that Karli was wrong to have killed those innocent people in the stash depot. Now let me ask you, do you believe Luke was also wrong to have destroyed the Deathstar while it was in the middle of trying to kill an entire planet? I'd tell the 130 people that "Sorry, but I won't kick out these other people. You're all going to have to learn to share and co-exist until we can expand the place" instead of "I don't care if you worked your butts off to maintain this building, I'm throwing 30 of you out to die in the cold and I'm taking away all your food and clothes too."
It shows that even 5 years later the planet still had empty abandoned places, places prime for re-settlement for the Returned.
They weren't innocent people, they were complicit in the GRC's plans. I do think that Luke was in a tough spot and made a hard choice, pity he didn't think much about it.
They're both killers, at the end of the day. One had it a bit easier than the other. I suppose if the GRC all wore Nazi-Esque Uniforms and spoke with British Accents it would be easier to dislike them.
You'd tell the 130 people that they need to share, but who would be sharing with who? How do you make it fair? Would you pick 30 random people to share their place with the additional 30? Would you force the newly returned people to share their place? What would you do if they refused? How long would they need to share? 1 month? 1 year? 10 years? Forever? Who owns the units if they decided to sell it? Who gets the money? Have you actually considered the feasibility ofyour answer? And sure Endgame showed there was still empty space 5 years later... because it was still BEFORE people came back. That's not the situation we're discussing here. When are you going to realize that there's a massive difference before and after the blip was reversed? You're still not giving me a direct answer regarding Luke. Did he or did he not do the right thing by destroying the Deathstar in order to save an entire planet?
|
|