Every platonic, straight, or "fancy" relationship that's actually spelled out in the story is there because of "plot importance" - whether it was important to a special episode's plot, or a sub-plot, or whatever.
That's how the comics industry, or any means of entertainment should treat it. If Diana (Wonder Woman) encounters a situation where her relationship preferences need to be brought to light, then do so, freely. If she's gonna have no relationships and yet you're gonna blather about her status... why bother?
Really? I don't think you've seen any media then. off hand minutia is how a world is developed and how we have characters and not archetypes. Things happen that are not related to the plot that flesh out the world because it sells the story to the consumer.
Did you also not read my post, or comprehend everything within?
I specifically called out "sub-plot". In at least a few different contexts that I've read, anything that's "ongoing" and not directly related to the actual "solving of the episode" is related to some sort of "sub-plot". To take a comic example, "the further adventures of Flash Thompson" in Spider Man is what gets classified as a "sub-plot".
Or, to be more generic, take a "Joe is married to Jane" comment. Even though we never see "Jane", said comment is used to explain why "Joe" is giving "Betty" the big sister treatment even though everyone's trying to ship them off because they're trying to advance "pick-a-sibling love" to "dating love".
And one last thing. Explain this:
In Transformers (G1) - just about every "Toy" had a specific weapon listed on it's tech specs / bio. Galvatron had a direct current cannon. Prowl's gun shot acid pellets. Thundercracker preferred Vulcan cannons while Skywarp used a machine gun. In their Sunbow Cartoon (and therefore "canon" appearances) - not a single bit of electricity, acid, or slug was fired, as everyone tended to shoot "generic blasteresque energy" out of their guns, unless it was a "fancy" energy or plot-important like Starscream's Null Rays.
World building? Or just "worthless trivia" because it was never used in any sort of a plot...
That's a terrible example. The Transformers toys pre-dated the TV show. There was no 'plot' for the weapons' names, etc. to be relevant to.
Did you also not read my post, or comprehend everything within?
I specifically called out "sub-plot". In at least a few different contexts that I've read, anything that's "ongoing" and not directly related to the actual "solving of the episode" is related to some sort of "sub-plot". To take a comic example, "the further adventures of Flash Thompson" in Spider Man is what gets classified as a "sub-plot".
Or, to be more generic, take a "Joe is married to Jane" comment. Even though we never see "Jane", said comment is used to explain why "Joe" is giving "Betty" the big sister treatment even though everyone's trying to ship them off because they're trying to advance "pick-a-sibling love" to "dating love".
I guess not because I can't see your point in this reply either.
Concepts can be shown and spelt out without ever becoming part of a plot, main or otherwise.
In Transformers (G1) - just about every "Toy" had a specific weapon listed on it's tech specs / bio. Galvatron had a direct current cannon. Prowl's gun shot acid pellets. Thundercracker preferred Vulcan cannons while Skywarp used a machine gun. In their Sunbow Cartoon (and therefore "canon" appearances) - not a single bit of electricity, acid, or slug was fired, as everyone tended to shoot "generic blasteresque energy" out of their guns, unless it was a "fancy" energy or plot-important like Starscream's Null Rays.
World building? Or just "worthless trivia" because it was never used in any sort of a plot...
What do you mean explain it? It's your example of... something, I guess.
If you want a comment on it you'll find it's both. It's off hand minutia (which is the phrase I used, not 'worthless trivia') and world building.
I don't believe things need to be plot relevant to world build, that's been my point from the start.
People trying to sideline a g.ay relationship simply because they don't think it's 'plot relevant' are just looking for a more palatable excuse as they don't also object to other inconsequential parts of backstory that don't further the plot.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
IMO, the whole thing is just as forced as making Superman and Wonder Woman lovers. (Or Batman and Wonder Woman, for that matter.) It's about throwing away decades of comic-book history for no better reason than to push buttons and make sales. And, frankly, it's about indulging and objectifying the fantasies of fan boys (and girls) instead of presenting a feminine ideal.
So for all of the millenials who have no clue about Diana's back story, she was literally created to be the ideal woman, made of clay and given life by Zeus. She originally left Paradise Island because encountering Steve Trevor (a man) awoke her to the wider world beyond its shores. She became Wonder Woman by fighting against the TRIBBLE in WWII and saved Steve Trevor's butt more than once. Yes, it was originally portrayed as a romantic involvement, but the character grew beyond that.
Given the character's history, I don't believe that she would define others by their gender or allow that to dictate her relationship to them, but instead she would judge them by their character. That's an ideal I can get behind. To put her in a box defined by her sexuality is completely against what she stands for.
Greg Rucka, who is currently writing Wonder Woman, says she's bi. Gail Simone, who wrote the title for quite some time, says it was common knowledge in the writers' room, dating back as far as she is aware, and that it makes perfect sense given both the situation and the way that William Moulton Marston wrote her in the beginning.
Greg Rucka, who is currently writing Wonder Woman, says she's bi. Gail Simone, who wrote the title for quite some time, says it was common knowledge in the writers' room, dating back as far as she is aware, and that it makes perfect sense given both the situation and the way that William Moulton Marston wrote her in the beginning.
I wouldn't argue with that. If she truly doesn't consider gender important than she might logically have relationships with men and women, sexual or otherwise.
Or maybe it's done solely to advance the backstory of a character and not an agenda.
Impossible. **** cannot be **** without expanding their evil **** plans. Did you know that a prime **** goal is to take away marriage from straight people? And just yesterday I feel a **** got treated even more equal than the average straight person! Maniacal laugh! Maniacal laugh!
First of all that is a stereotype of Christians and others who do not support the radical, leftist, neo-liberal homosexual agenda where Christians are being fired, ridiculed, hated, etc for their beliefs regarding God's view on sexuality as shown in the Bible which is not and should not be forced on anyone. Examples of people who have been fired due to this intolerance are Barronelle Stutzman, Aaron and Melissa Klein of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, Jack Philips of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Judge Roy Moore, two New Mexico photographers, fire chief Kelvin Cochran due to a published book on sexuality and marriage, Brendan Eich of Mozilla Firefox, etc. There are also games on AddictingGames, one called Spank a Celebrity, and the first one featured in the game says marriage is between a man and a woman, so the creators of the game want the players to inflict fictional bodily harm against those who they do not agree with. Not everyone who agrees with traditional marriage is a hater, bigot, etc (I really wish there were no ''nutjobs'' on the right). The militant homosexual groups are the same people who hate people who differ on this societal issue, call the HB2 law in North Carolina discriminatory (even though in Hawaii and other states they have similar laws that protect women and children in the bathroom), have a hate list against Christians such as Kirk Cameron and other Christians who do not hate homosexuals but are against homosexuality (examples are the Huffington Post and the Southern Poverty Law Center), etc. These groups such as the Human Rights Campaign (do not care about the human rights of those who do not agree), the Southern Poverty Law Center, the ACLU ( The I-Sue-You), GLSEN, Stonewall, and others. These organizations forcing their views on the populace and demanding they be accepted as a protected class based solely on feelings and not biological and anatomical reality is wrong and who try to censor any views in science that contradict their questionable findings. In America as well as else where Christians and others should be allowed to disagree with what is becoming the status quo without being penalized. Discussion as well as debate should be allowed on this issue including no usage of ad hominem statements used to commit character assassination. Those on the right as well as some on the left do not believe that marriage is being taken away from people who engage in biblical marriage (as for the term straight, the opposite is crooked, yet no one says that) but that marriage has been redefined to satisfy the questionable feelings (usually lust) between two men and two women and that these entities do not want it to just be accepted or tolerated but also celebrated and paraded in the streets confusing children and belittling those who do not agree. Your laugh just shows your intolerance for people who do not agree with your worldview. So to you and the others who might or might not be haters, Jesus loves you and I love you but I will never surrender to political correctness and will never sacrifice my Christian beliefs on the altar of the PC god. I support the First Amendment and the Constitution of the U.S not bullying and discrimination against Christians and others.
Now, since I took care of that. They should not make Wonder Woman homosexual or ''TRIBBLE'' (just as they should have followed Takei's advice and not made Sulu homosexual, since that was not referred to or implied in any of the previous films). They should instead find another female Amazon (contrary to those with a perverted mind, those females on an island do not need to engage in sexual acts, some can be chaste instead of acting that way) and if they want to let her be homosexual without using buzz words, without shouting it from the bastions of political correctness, and let the character stand on their own two feet based on their character, character development, etc. then so be it. To those on both of these sides of the issue, enjoy Star Trek Online. I enjoy playing it and having fun in the game. God bless. May you all have a beautiful day.
Wow, marcus, now we can add telepathy to your other skills? I mean, that's some detailed knowledge of other folks' internal processes there...
Reading and understanding the behaviors of other people doesn't require telepathy... I was also being sarcastic, although the fundamental principle, I was being serious about... Behavioral psychology has always been an interest of mine, and my life experiences have exposed me to enough people in various walks of life, that spotting patterns of behavior/models of thought, etc, isn't difficult for me
If you can find me any examples of Hardcore SJWs who are passionate about and champion cis-gendered-hetero-white-man, by all means, let me know, and I'll revise my opinion All I see thus far, however (in the world in general, not the participants of this conversation) is people who feel the need to 'champion a cause'/'fight for the underdog', and who seem to select their chosen 'cause', for no other reason than because a person is of a minority group (whatever that group may be) rather than any other characteristic or criteria...
then there's the people who are full-time activists... For them, actual peaceful relations means they need to get a real job. Which of them are doing it for the money, and which are in it to actually try to make the world a better place needs to be studied on an individual basis. But the ones who are just in it for the money often get people riled up just to give people a reason to donate to "the cause". And that's instead of actually trying to promote equality.
Since we're on the topic of the psychology of equality, what message do things like "Hispanic heritage month" actually convey? It's not equality.
Wow, marcus, now we can add telepathy to your other skills? I mean, that's some detailed knowledge of other folks' internal processes there...
Reading and understanding the behaviors of other people doesn't require telepathy... I was also being sarcastic, although the fundamental principle, I was being serious about... Behavioral psychology has always been an interest of mine, and my life experiences have exposed me to enough people in various walks of life, that spotting patterns of behavior/models of thought, etc, isn't difficult for me
If you can find me any examples of Hardcore SJWs who are passionate about and champion cis-gendered-hetero-white-man, by all means, let me know, and I'll revise my opinion All I see thus far, however (in the world in general, not the participants of this conversation) is people who feel the need to 'champion a cause'/'fight for the underdog', and who seem to select their chosen 'cause', for no other reason than because a person is of a minority group (whatever that group may be) rather than any other characteristic or criteria...
then there's the people who are full-time activists... For them, actual peaceful relations means they need to get a real job. Which of them are doing it for the money, and which are in it to actually try to make the world a better place needs to be studied on an individual basis. But the ones who are just in it for the money often get people riled up just to give people a reason to donate to "the cause". And that's instead of actually trying to promote equality.
Since we're on the topic of the psychology of equality, what message do things like "Hispanic heritage month" actually convey? It's not equality.
Well that's certainly very true, true activists are a different kettle of fish to the indoctrinated mouthpieces who just regurgitate the rhetoric to be displaying virtue... But it's the hypocrisy of many which amuses/iritates me... It's like the male SJW/white knight who will get out of his seat on the bus for an attractive woman, but who would remain seated if it was another guy, or an unattractive woman... The true equalitarian would either give up his seat for either, or give it up for neither, on the premise of 'first come, first served', and that to give a woman a seat Because She's A Woman, is still chauvenistic thinking
And absolutely so... The thing is, affirmative action, aka positive discrimination, is still discrimination, and as an ethos, discrimination can never be positive
where Christians are being fired, ridiculed, hated, etc for their beliefs regarding God's view on sexuality as shown in the Bible which is not and should not be forced on anyone.
Yes, because the punishment for committing an abomination is death and people who think that that is acceptable deserve to be ridiculed and fired. PEople who don't should stop pretending their book is moral.
The militant homosexual groups are the same people who hate people who differ on this societal issue, call the HB2 law in North Carolina discriminatory (even though in Hawaii and other states they have similar laws that protect women and children in the bathroom),
Because it is. Nobody needs protection in bathrooms from anybody except potential attackers... WHO DON'T OBEY LAWS. It's an attempt to enforce fear as you well know.
have a hate list against Christians such as Kirk Cameron and other Christians who do not hate homosexuals but are against homosexuality (examples are the Huffington Post and the Southern Poverty Law Center), etc.
HAHAHAHAHA. Poor Kirk Cameron, poor poor Kirk Cameron, whatever has he done to deserve to be hated... Oh, I'll just go google that then...
the Southern Poverty Law Center, the ACLU ( The I-Sue-You), GLSEN, Stonewall, and others. These organizations forcing their views on the populace and demanding they be accepted as a protected class based solely on feelings and not biological and anatomical reality is wrong and who try to censor any views in science that contradict their questionable findings.
Sexuality is biology you pillock. Oh, sorry, as a person who believes in magic, that may be difficult for you to accept.
In America as well as else where Christians and others should be allowed to disagree with what is becoming the status quo without being penalized.
Never disrupt the Status Quo, never. Now get those black back to picking cotton and those women, voteless and behind the sink. Civil Rights are for all, not just the ones it's no longer fashionable for you to hate.
Those on the right as well as some on the left do not believe that marriage is being taken away from people who engage in biblical marriage (as for the term straight, the opposite is crooked, yet no one says that)
Marriage is a civil contract that is far older than your particular religion and will long outlast it. Your lack of ability to redefine a civil contract undertaken for tax reasons is not discrimination against you for the same reason other laws in your country are not based on the same bronze age book of how to live in a desert.
NOTHING IS BEING TAKEN AWAY. I'm not sure how, even your mind, could presume that opening something up restricts use. You obviously have been told how you think and what to say because you've just given a paragraph that looks suspiciously copy and pasted.
between two men and two women and that these entities do not want it to just be accepted or tolerated but also celebrated and paraded in the streets confusing children and belittling those who do not agree.
Sorry, we should definitely keep all the blacks back at their plantation so children don't associate them with Freemen.
I support the First Amendment and the Constitution of the U.S not bullying and discrimination against Christians and others.
Freedom of religion, not freedom for religion you silly regurgitator. Your country is secular. Your laws are secular not religious, you are a republic not a theocracy. The civil state has decided civil rights apply to another section of its citizens in a civil matter with no relation to your cult at all.
(contrary to those with a perverted mind, those females on an island do not need to engage in sexual acts, some can be chaste instead of acting that way)
Oh look, a religious nut who thinks sex is perverse. I am surprise!
(just as they should have followed Takei's advice and not made Sulu homosexual, since that was not referred to or implied in any of the previous films).
It wasn't not implied either, nor was the opposite, but it's nice you didn't add in a little message for him though, you exceeded my expectations there.
and if they want to let her be homosexual without using buzz words, without shouting it from the bastions of political correctness, and let the character stand on their own two feet based on their character, character development, etc. then so be it.
Sexuality and all relationships are character development.
To those on both of these sides of the issue, enjoy Star Trek Online. I enjoy playing it and having fun in the game. God bless. May you all have a beautiful day.
Wow, not often I see that sort of ending outside of those people who come to my door trying to sell me a second hand god from some Jewish guys.
But it's nice you feel able to spread your love...
...Well, except to g.ay people obviously, but who cares about them?
I'm sure this is exactly the reply @angrytarg was thinking of when they wrote their comment. It's so nice to see people like this exist, it's lovely to get a yard stick of social evolution in practice .
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
where Christians are being fired, ridiculed, hated, etc for their beliefs regarding God's view on sexuality as shown in the Bible which is not and should not be forced on anyone.
Yes, because the punishment for committing an abomination is death and people who think that that is acceptable deserve to be ridiculed and fired. PEople who don't should stop pretending their book is moral.
The militant homosexual groups are the same people who hate people who differ on this societal issue, call the HB2 law in North Carolina discriminatory (even though in Hawaii and other states they have similar laws that protect women and children in the bathroom),
Because it is. Nobody needs protection in bathrooms from anybody except potential attackers... WHO DON'T OBEY LAWS. It's an attempt to enforce fear as you well know.
have a hate list against Christians such as Kirk Cameron and other Christians who do not hate homosexuals but are against homosexuality (examples are the Huffington Post and the Southern Poverty Law Center), etc.
HAHAHAHAHA. Poor Kirk Cameron, poor poor Kirk Cameron, whatever has he done to deserve to be hated... Oh, I'll just go google that then...
the Southern Poverty Law Center, the ACLU ( The I-Sue-You), GLSEN, Stonewall, and others. These organizations forcing their views on the populace and demanding they be accepted as a protected class based solely on feelings and not biological and anatomical reality is wrong and who try to censor any views in science that contradict their questionable findings.
Sexuality is biology you pillock. Oh, sorry, as a person who believes in magic, that may be difficult for you to accept.
In America as well as else where Christians and others should be allowed to disagree with what is becoming the status quo without being penalized.
Never disrupt the Status Quo, never. Now get those black back to picking cotton and those women, voteless and behind the sink. Civil Rights are for all, not just the ones it's no longer fashionable for you to hate.
Those on the right as well as some on the left do not believe that marriage is being taken away from people who engage in biblical marriage (as for the term straight, the opposite is crooked, yet no one says that)
Marriage is a civil contract that is far older than your particular religion and will long outlast it. Your lack of ability to redefine a civil contract undertaken for tax reasons is not discrimination against you for the same reason other laws in your country are not based on the same bronze age book of how to live in a desert.
NOTHING IS BEING TAKEN AWAY. I'm not sure how, even your mind, could presume that opening something up restricts use. You obviously have been told how you think and what to say because you've just given a paragraph that looks suspiciously copy and pasted.
between two men and two women and that these entities do not want it to just be accepted or tolerated but also celebrated and paraded in the streets confusing children and belittling those who do not agree.
Sorry, we should definitely keep all the blacks back at their plantation so children don't associate them with Freemen.
I support the First Amendment and the Constitution of the U.S not bullying and discrimination against Christians and others.
Freedom of religion, not freedom for religion you silly regurgitator. Your country is secular. Your laws are secular not religious, you are a republic not a theocracy. The civil state has decided civil rights apply to another section of its citizens in a civil matter with no relation to your cult at all.
(contrary to those with a perverted mind, those females on an island do not need to engage in sexual acts, some can be chaste instead of acting that way)
Oh look, a religious nut who thinks sex is perverse. I am surprise!
(just as they should have followed Takei's advice and not made Sulu homosexual, since that was not referred to or implied in any of the previous films).
It wasn't not implied either, nor was the opposite, but it's nice you didn't add in a little message for him though, you exceeded my expectations there.
and if they want to let her be homosexual without using buzz words, without shouting it from the bastions of political correctness, and let the character stand on their own two feet based on their character, character development, etc. then so be it.
Sexuality and all relationships are character development.
To those on both of these sides of the issue, enjoy Star Trek Online. I enjoy playing it and having fun in the game. God bless. May you all have a beautiful day.
Wow, not often I see that sort of ending outside of those people who come to my door trying to sell me a second hand god from some Jewish guys.
But it's nice you feel able to spread your love...
...Well, except to g.ay people obviously, but who cares about them?
I'm sure this is exactly the reply @angrytarg was thinking of when they wrote their comment. It's so nice to see people like this exist, it's lovely to get a yard stick of social evolution in practice .
Interestingly, note how he mentioned Roy Moore in his post? He's a State Justice who was fired for passing a judgement ruling same-sex marriage immoral, even after a Federal Court ruled the judgement unconstitutional the last time he tried to push it. He was fired for violating legal ethics (allowing personal beliefs to override the law), not for being Christian or Homophobic. His judgement explicitly ruled the matter 'immoral'. As a judge, he can only make judgements based on the law, not morality (the two are not necessarily identical). He acted unprofessionally, as simple as that.
Now, regarding your post... Dude... What... The... Hell? I get that he was being extremely excessive and intolerant, but not all Christians are like that! I should know, I am one! Your post comes off as, honestly, hurtful.
Interestingly, note how he mentioned Roy Moore in his post? He's a State Justice who was fired for passing a judgement ruling same-sex marriage immoral, even after a Federal Court ruled the judgement unconstitutional the last time he tried to push it. He was fired for violating legal ethics (allowing personal beliefs to override the law), not for being Christian or Homophobic. His judgement explicitly ruled the matter 'immoral'. As a judge, he can only make judgements based on the law, not morality (the two are not necessarily identical). He acted unprofessionally, as simple as that.
Now, regarding your post... Dude... What... The... Hell? I get that he was being extremely excessive and intolerant, but not all Christians are like that! I should know, I am one! Your post comes off as, honestly, hurtful.
It's mainly an attack to him personally, but ideas drive people. I can separate christianity from Christians, but it's Christianity that has formed the basis for his views.
If other Christians can form better ones from the same basis then it's not addressed to them. Every post you've made in this thread has proven that. I apologise if you thought it was an attack on a group or you and not as an attack on an individual.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Yeah, the guy sounds at least a little like the kind of person that probably wrote the religion books down here. From what I've been told, one book has chapter titles along the lines of 'Islam, atheism and Judaism are evil, be a Catholic!'
(I may be misremembering things, though.)
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Interestingly, note how he mentioned Roy Moore in his post? He's a State Justice who was fired for passing a judgement ruling same-sex marriage immoral, even after a Federal Court ruled the judgement unconstitutional the last time he tried to push it. He was fired for violating legal ethics (allowing personal beliefs to override the law), not for being Christian or Homophobic. His judgement explicitly ruled the matter 'immoral'. As a judge, he can only make judgements based on the law, not morality (the two are not necessarily identical). He acted unprofessionally, as simple as that.
Now, regarding your post... Dude... What... The... Hell? I get that he was being extremely excessive and intolerant, but not all Christians are like that! I should know, I am one! Your post comes off as, honestly, hurtful.
It's mainly an attack to him personally, but ideas drive people. I can separate christianity from Christians, but it's Christianity that has formed the basis for his views.
If other Christians can form better ones from the same basis then it's not addressed to them. Every post you've made in this thread has proven that. I apologise if you thought it was an attack on a group or you and not as an attack on an individual.
Thank you. I can certainly understand that. I've made more than one post on this forum when I was angry and it came off the wrong way to people.
Anyway, back onto the thread topic, if as Jonsills says, Gail Simone and other past writers (who have been writing and developing the character for years) understood that Wonder Woman was bisexual by nature of her origins, then I don't see how that can be a retcon. If the main reason for Sulu being heterosexual was that Gene said so, then the collective views of past WW writers (without whom's contributions WW would be a very different character today) as to her bisexuality should carry just as much weight.
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Oh yes, starswordc, as well as ryan218. I'll apologise to two reasonable people.
It also strikes me how much Christianity is based on Paul and not the central figure's teachings. But then again, Paul was the Ur example of using a religion to build and unify an Empire under siege with the Gospels seemingly added as nothing more than an attempt to give Paul all the divine justification (a prequel of sorts) he needed for his own agenda.
Thank you. I can certainly understand that. I've made more than one post on this forum when I was angry and it came off the wrong way to people.
Yeah, I've met a person very like this in real life and it's a bit unsettling to encounter in England for reasons we've gone over a few pages ago.
People unwilling to respect human rights rub me the wrong way, especially ones so entrenched for reasons that do not make sense.
Anyway, back onto the thread topic, if as Jonsills says, Gail Simone and other past writers (who have been writing and developing the character for years) understood that Wonder Woman was bisexual by nature of her origins, then I don't see how that can be a retcon. If the main reason for Sulu being heterosexual was that Gene said so, then the collective views of past WW writers (without whom's contributions WW would be a very different character today) as to her bisexuality should carry just as much weight.
Well there's also the fact that bisexuality is even less of a retcon as it covers souch a wide array of sexualaties from 'if it's you it's okay' to 'I'm going home with somebody tonight and I don't care who'. It's perfectly possible to be bisexual and only ever formed straight romantic relationships, or only g.ay.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Oh yes, starswordc, as well as ryan218. I'll apologise to two reasonable people.
Don't worry about it, man. Guys like him p*ss me off, too.
I think a lot of it comes from right-wing Christians simply not getting any real exposure to other viewpoints growing up and getting into groupthink: there's nothing stupider than a large group of people. Whereas me, I grew up Protestant (Presbyterian, then Methodist), but one of my uncles is a Reform rabbi and another is Wiccan, and my best friend in fifth grade was a gaming buddy who was Baha'i (and I wish to heck I could find him on Facebook).
It also strikes me how much Christianity is based on Paul and not the central figure's teachings. But then again, Paul was the Ur example of using a religion to build and unify an Empire under siege with the Gospels seemingly added as nothing more than an attempt to give Paul all the divine justification (a prequel of sorts) he needed for his own agenda.
I'm not going to get into specifics on that, but there's certainly been a lot of blood shed falsely in the name of Christ, a pacifist Jewish Palestinian who supported the poor and racial equality. But, that can be said of pretty much any system of thought: people don't need a reason to be d*cks to one another, but it sure makes it easier to have a reason.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
I stopped reading sthe's drivel at the point s/he claimed that Christians were being fired and persecuted for their faith.
Where, exactly, is this happening? Because it sure as frak ain't here in the good ol' U. S. of A., my friend. And somehow I don't really think we have that many STO players from, say, Iran or western Pakistan.
Interestingly, note how he mentioned Roy Moore in his post? He's a State Justice who was fired for passing a judgement ruling same-sex marriage immoral, even after a Federal Court ruled the judgement unconstitutional the last time he tried to push it. He was fired for violating legal ethics (allowing personal beliefs to override the law), not for being Christian or Homophobic. His judgement explicitly ruled the matter 'immoral'. As a judge, he can only make judgements based on the law, not morality (the two are not necessarily identical). He acted unprofessionally, as simple as that.
Now, regarding your post... Dude... What... The... Hell? I get that he was being extremely excessive and intolerant, but not all Christians are like that! I should know, I am one! Your post comes off as, honestly, hurtful.
It's mainly an attack to him personally, but ideas drive people. I can separate christianity from Christians, but it's Christianity that has formed the basis for his views.
If other Christians can form better ones from the same basis then it's not addressed to them. Every post you've made in this thread has proven that. I apologise if you thought it was an attack on a group or you and not as an attack on an individual.
Christianity isn't the problem, the problem is Christian leaders who exploit, misinterpret, and misrepresent the bible to push their conservative idiocy on others. These people are no better than those who exploit, misinterpret, and misrepresent Islam to convince people to conduct terrorism. However, these people do not represent all or even most Christians, just like islamic terrorists only represent less than 1 percent of Muslims.
I myself am Christian, but am about as left as you can get on all issues except guns and military spending. Blaming christianity itself for these things is simply incorrect, it's conservatives (religious or otherwise) who are the problem.
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Because freedom of speech gives people the right to say things. Suggesting that people can't say X, is dangerous and fascist. It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Being offended or p*ssed off are a choice... Yes, something/someone may be offensive, but it's for the other party to either allow themselves to be offended by it, or chose to rise above it. See Stephen Fry's thoughts on 'being offended', he sums it up perfectly...
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Because freedom of speech gives people the right to say things. Suggesting that people can't say X, is dangerous and fascist. It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Being offended or p*ssed off are a choice... Yes, something/someone may be offensive, but it's for the other party to either allow themselves to be offended by it, or chose to rise above it. See Stephen Fry's thoughts on 'being offended', he sums it up perfectly...
I frequently say things that would probably earn me the SJW label (especially on the WoW forums ... it's bad over there), but I never say someone can't say something, I always say that they shouldn't.
The reason I tell people they shouldn't say things is first, I don't want any of my fellow gamers to be uncomfortable because of their race, gender, sexuality, or religion. Second, I don't want my kids reading some of the offensive things I've seen and thinking it is acceptable to treat people horribly.
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Because freedom of speech gives people the right to say things. Suggesting that people can't say X, is dangerous and fascist. It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Oh, really? "Freedom of speech", that's what you're going with?
I think we're in need of a refresher course here. Hit it, Munroe!
Alt text: "I can't remember where I heard this, but defending a position by citing free speech is kind of the ultimate concession: you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Because freedom of speech gives people the right to say things. Suggesting that people can't say X, is dangerous and fascist. It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Being offended or p*ssed off are a choice... Yes, something/someone may be offensive, but it's for the other party to either allow themselves to be offended by it, or chose to rise above it. See Stephen Fry's thoughts on 'being offended', he sums it up perfectly...
I frequently say things that would probably earn me the SJW label (especially on the WoW forums ... it's bad over there), but I never say someone can't say something, I always say that they shouldn't.
The reason I tell people they shouldn't say things is first, I don't want any of my fellow gamers to be uncomfortable because of their race, gender, sexuality, or religion. Second, I don't want my kids reading some of the offensive things I've seen and thinking it is acceptable to treat people horribly.
Noble motives indeed: It still comes down to you dictating what someone else can't do because you have a problem with it...
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Because freedom of speech gives people the right to say things. Suggesting that people can't say X, is dangerous and fascist. It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Oh, really? "Freedom of speech", that's what you're going with?
I think we're in need of a refresher course here. Hit it, Munroe!
Alt text: "I can't remember where I heard this, but defending a position by citing free speech is kind of the ultimate concession: you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
So you don't believe in freedom of speech? And think an emotionally biased and questionable cartoon is a response? Like I said, check out Stephen Fry's thoughts on 'being offended': I agree with them...
Also, for the record, I'm not fussed if I come across as an a55hole... I'm hardly alone in that, and to be honest, I would rather be thought an a55hole for being honest about my opinion(s) than tolerated for saying what others want to hear... But as for your lack of tolerance for other people's opinions which differ from yours, you're just proving my point...
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Because freedom of speech gives people the right to say things. Suggesting that people can't say X, is dangerous and fascist. It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Oh, really? "Freedom of speech", that's what you're going with?
I think we're in need of a refresher course here. Hit it, Munroe!
Alt text: "I can't remember where I heard this, but defending a position by citing free speech is kind of the ultimate concession: you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
So you don't believe in freedom of speech? And think an emotionally biased and questionable cartoon is a response? Like I said, check out Stephen Fry's thoughts on 'being offended': I agree with them...
Also, for the record, I'm not fussed if I come across as an a55hole... I'm hardly alone in that, and to be honest, I would rather be thought an a55hole for being honest about my opinion(s) than tolerated for saying what others want to hear... But as for your lack of tolerance for other people's opinions which differ from yours, you're just proving my point...
So, in other words, your only response to the argument is to attack the method by which the argument was made instead of addressing it. Got it. Also:
It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Slippery slope fallacy. Just because X happens doesn't automatically mean that Y or Z will. You can tell somebody off for using racial or religious slurs and still be fine with them expressing their political views; it's not either/or.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Because freedom of speech gives people the right to say things. Suggesting that people can't say X, is dangerous and fascist. It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Oh, really? "Freedom of speech", that's what you're going with?
I think we're in need of a refresher course here. Hit it, Munroe!
Alt text: "I can't remember where I heard this, but defending a position by citing free speech is kind of the ultimate concession: you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
So you don't believe in freedom of speech? And think an emotionally biased and questionable cartoon is a response? Like I said, check out Stephen Fry's thoughts on 'being offended': I agree with them...
Also, for the record, I'm not fussed if I come across as an a55hole... I'm hardly alone in that, and to be honest, I would rather be thought an a55hole for being honest about my opinion(s) than tolerated for saying what others want to hear... But as for your lack of tolerance for other people's opinions which differ from yours, you're just proving my point...
There was never a statement implying anything that would support your comment, "So you don't believe in freedom of speech." In fact, the posted comic supports Free Speech. Free speech not only applies to those who want to express their views, but to those who tell the speaker that his ideas are rubbish.
This tactic is deplorable, and yet it grows more common over time: those who express unpopular views then turn around and label those who disagree with them as intolerant.
Why must base motives be assigned to people who do not agree with you? People of good intent can disagree without one or the other being evil. Your post is a sad expose of intolerance on your part, not on his.
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Because freedom of speech gives people the right to say things. Suggesting that people can't say X, is dangerous and fascist. It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Oh, really? "Freedom of speech", that's what you're going with?
I think we're in need of a refresher course here. Hit it, Munroe!
Alt text: "I can't remember where I heard this, but defending a position by citing free speech is kind of the ultimate concession: you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
So you don't believe in freedom of speech? And think an emotionally biased and questionable cartoon is a response? Like I said, check out Stephen Fry's thoughts on 'being offended': I agree with them...
Also, for the record, I'm not fussed if I come across as an a55hole... I'm hardly alone in that, and to be honest, I would rather be thought an a55hole for being honest about my opinion(s) than tolerated for saying what others want to hear... But as for your lack of tolerance for other people's opinions which differ from yours, you're just proving my point...
So, in other words, your only response to the argument is to attack the method by which the argument was made instead of addressing it. Got it. Also:
It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Slippery slope fallacy. Just because X happens doesn't automatically mean that Y or Z will. You can tell somebody off for using racial or religious slurs and still be fine with them expressing their political views; it's not either/or.
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Because freedom of speech gives people the right to say things. Suggesting that people can't say X, is dangerous and fascist. It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Oh, really? "Freedom of speech", that's what you're going with?
I think we're in need of a refresher course here. Hit it, Munroe!
Alt text: "I can't remember where I heard this, but defending a position by citing free speech is kind of the ultimate concession: you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
So you don't believe in freedom of speech? And think an emotionally biased and questionable cartoon is a response? Like I said, check out Stephen Fry's thoughts on 'being offended': I agree with them...
Also, for the record, I'm not fussed if I come across as an a55hole... I'm hardly alone in that, and to be honest, I would rather be thought an a55hole for being honest about my opinion(s) than tolerated for saying what others want to hear... But as for your lack of tolerance for other people's opinions which differ from yours, you're just proving my point...
There was never a statement implying anything that would support your comment, "So you don't believe in freedom of speech." In fact, the posted comic supports Free Speech. Free speech not only applies to those who want to express their views, but to those who tell the speaker that his ideas are rubbish.
This tactic is deplorable, and yet it grows more common over time: those who express unpopular views then turn around and label those who disagree with them as intolerant.
Why must base motives be assigned to people who do not agree with you? People of good intent can disagree without one or the other being evil. Your post is a sad expose of intolerance on your part, not on his.
Wow, you and I actually agreed on something. Isn't that a sign of the apocalypse? O.O
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Because freedom of speech gives people the right to say things. Suggesting that people can't say X, is dangerous and fascist. It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Oh, really? "Freedom of speech", that's what you're going with?
I think we're in need of a refresher course here. Hit it, Munroe!
Alt text: "I can't remember where I heard this, but defending a position by citing free speech is kind of the ultimate concession: you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
So you don't believe in freedom of speech? And think an emotionally biased and questionable cartoon is a response? Like I said, check out Stephen Fry's thoughts on 'being offended': I agree with them...
Also, for the record, I'm not fussed if I come across as an a55hole... I'm hardly alone in that, and to be honest, I would rather be thought an a55hole for being honest about my opinion(s) than tolerated for saying what others want to hear... But as for your lack of tolerance for other people's opinions which differ from yours, you're just proving my point...
There was never a statement implying anything that would support your comment, "So you don't believe in freedom of speech." In fact, the posted comic supports Free Speech. Free speech not only applies to those who want to express their views, but to those who tell the speaker that his ideas are rubbish.
This tactic is deplorable, and yet it grows more common over time: those who express unpopular views then turn around and label those who disagree with them as intolerant.
Why must base motives be assigned to people who do not agree with you? People of good intent can disagree without one or the other being evil. Your post is a sad expose of intolerance on your part, not on his.
The comment Stephen Fry made, to which I was referring, is about being offended, not about Free Speech.
And yes, the comic does support it, with the last two cells being a snarky attack on 'you', or whoever is directed to read it. The implications of those cells, I not only find unnecessary, but also massively hypocritical, when coming from someone who repeatedly ghost-posts for a banned former forum member, thus breaching the forum's rules on circumventing a ban...
I have no issue with agreeing to disagree with someone, but there is nothing 'deplorable' in pointing out the intellectual fascism which self-appointed bastions of morality try and enforce upon others by deeming things 'problematic'. The behaviour of those people is intolerance, because it is intolerance of an idea they disagree with. There's no emotional or semantic juggling which can disguise the fact, that the so-called SJWs are every bit as intolerant, if not more so, of those they disagree with, coupled with the self-righteous indignation of their echo-chamber social structures.
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Because freedom of speech gives people the right to say things. Suggesting that people can't say X, is dangerous and fascist. It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Oh, really? "Freedom of speech", that's what you're going with?
I think we're in need of a refresher course here. Hit it, Munroe!
Alt text: "I can't remember where I heard this, but defending a position by citing free speech is kind of the ultimate concession: you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
So you don't believe in freedom of speech? And think an emotionally biased and questionable cartoon is a response? Like I said, check out Stephen Fry's thoughts on 'being offended': I agree with them...
Also, for the record, I'm not fussed if I come across as an a55hole... I'm hardly alone in that, and to be honest, I would rather be thought an a55hole for being honest about my opinion(s) than tolerated for saying what others want to hear... But as for your lack of tolerance for other people's opinions which differ from yours, you're just proving my point...
So, in other words, your only response to the argument is to attack the method by which the argument was made instead of addressing it. Got it. Also:
It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Slippery slope fallacy. Just because X happens doesn't automatically mean that Y or Z will. You can tell somebody off for using racial or religious slurs and still be fine with them expressing their political views; it's not either/or.
You're not denying it. Got it.
No, I don't deny that I consider freedom of speech to include my right to tell other speakers what they can go do with their views and otherwise refuse to simply put up with them.
Why should I?
Are you offended by that?
The knife cuts both ways, pal.
And in regards to ghost-posting for a banned forum member? I did that once, so he could participate in a literary challenge, and requested feedback from the moderators on whether such was acceptable (and have yet to receive any in either direction).
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Comments
That's a terrible example. The Transformers toys pre-dated the TV show. There was no 'plot' for the weapons' names, etc. to be relevant to.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
I guess not because I can't see your point in this reply either.
Concepts can be shown and spelt out without ever becoming part of a plot, main or otherwise.
What do you mean explain it? It's your example of... something, I guess.
If you want a comment on it you'll find it's both. It's off hand minutia (which is the phrase I used, not 'worthless trivia') and world building.
I don't believe things need to be plot relevant to world build, that's been my point from the start.
People trying to sideline a g.ay relationship simply because they don't think it's 'plot relevant' are just looking for a more palatable excuse as they don't also object to other inconsequential parts of backstory that don't further the plot.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
So for all of the millenials who have no clue about Diana's back story, she was literally created to be the ideal woman, made of clay and given life by Zeus. She originally left Paradise Island because encountering Steve Trevor (a man) awoke her to the wider world beyond its shores. She became Wonder Woman by fighting against the TRIBBLE in WWII and saved Steve Trevor's butt more than once. Yes, it was originally portrayed as a romantic involvement, but the character grew beyond that.
Given the character's history, I don't believe that she would define others by their gender or allow that to dictate her relationship to them, but instead she would judge them by their character. That's an ideal I can get behind. To put her in a box defined by her sexuality is completely against what she stands for.
I wouldn't argue with that. If she truly doesn't consider gender important than she might logically have relationships with men and women, sexual or otherwise.
My point is, it's not the point.
First of all that is a stereotype of Christians and others who do not support the radical, leftist, neo-liberal homosexual agenda where Christians are being fired, ridiculed, hated, etc for their beliefs regarding God's view on sexuality as shown in the Bible which is not and should not be forced on anyone. Examples of people who have been fired due to this intolerance are Barronelle Stutzman, Aaron and Melissa Klein of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, Jack Philips of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Judge Roy Moore, two New Mexico photographers, fire chief Kelvin Cochran due to a published book on sexuality and marriage, Brendan Eich of Mozilla Firefox, etc. There are also games on AddictingGames, one called Spank a Celebrity, and the first one featured in the game says marriage is between a man and a woman, so the creators of the game want the players to inflict fictional bodily harm against those who they do not agree with. Not everyone who agrees with traditional marriage is a hater, bigot, etc (I really wish there were no ''nutjobs'' on the right). The militant homosexual groups are the same people who hate people who differ on this societal issue, call the HB2 law in North Carolina discriminatory (even though in Hawaii and other states they have similar laws that protect women and children in the bathroom), have a hate list against Christians such as Kirk Cameron and other Christians who do not hate homosexuals but are against homosexuality (examples are the Huffington Post and the Southern Poverty Law Center), etc. These groups such as the Human Rights Campaign (do not care about the human rights of those who do not agree), the Southern Poverty Law Center, the ACLU ( The I-Sue-You), GLSEN, Stonewall, and others. These organizations forcing their views on the populace and demanding they be accepted as a protected class based solely on feelings and not biological and anatomical reality is wrong and who try to censor any views in science that contradict their questionable findings. In America as well as else where Christians and others should be allowed to disagree with what is becoming the status quo without being penalized. Discussion as well as debate should be allowed on this issue including no usage of ad hominem statements used to commit character assassination. Those on the right as well as some on the left do not believe that marriage is being taken away from people who engage in biblical marriage (as for the term straight, the opposite is crooked, yet no one says that) but that marriage has been redefined to satisfy the questionable feelings (usually lust) between two men and two women and that these entities do not want it to just be accepted or tolerated but also celebrated and paraded in the streets confusing children and belittling those who do not agree. Your laugh just shows your intolerance for people who do not agree with your worldview. So to you and the others who might or might not be haters, Jesus loves you and I love you but I will never surrender to political correctness and will never sacrifice my Christian beliefs on the altar of the PC god. I support the First Amendment and the Constitution of the U.S not bullying and discrimination against Christians and others.
Now, since I took care of that. They should not make Wonder Woman homosexual or ''TRIBBLE'' (just as they should have followed Takei's advice and not made Sulu homosexual, since that was not referred to or implied in any of the previous films). They should instead find another female Amazon (contrary to those with a perverted mind, those females on an island do not need to engage in sexual acts, some can be chaste instead of acting that way) and if they want to let her be homosexual without using buzz words, without shouting it from the bastions of political correctness, and let the character stand on their own two feet based on their character, character development, etc. then so be it. To those on both of these sides of the issue, enjoy Star Trek Online. I enjoy playing it and having fun in the game. God bless. May you all have a beautiful day.
Since we're on the topic of the psychology of equality, what message do things like "Hispanic heritage month" actually convey? It's not equality.
My character Tsin'xing
And absolutely so... The thing is, affirmative action, aka positive discrimination, is still discrimination, and as an ethos, discrimination can never be positive
Oh look, somebody who thinks there is one agenda that encapsulates all of those things.
Yes, because the punishment for committing an abomination is death and people who think that that is acceptable deserve to be ridiculed and fired. PEople who don't should stop pretending their book is moral.
Because it is. Nobody needs protection in bathrooms from anybody except potential attackers... WHO DON'T OBEY LAWS. It's an attempt to enforce fear as you well know.
HAHAHAHAHA. Poor Kirk Cameron, poor poor Kirk Cameron, whatever has he done to deserve to be hated... Oh, I'll just go google that then...
That would be your mob.
Sexuality is biology you pillock. Oh, sorry, as a person who believes in magic, that may be difficult for you to accept.
Never disrupt the Status Quo, never. Now get those black back to picking cotton and those women, voteless and behind the sink. Civil Rights are for all, not just the ones it's no longer fashionable for you to hate.
Mate, your entire wall of bollocks is this.
Marriage is a civil contract that is far older than your particular religion and will long outlast it. Your lack of ability to redefine a civil contract undertaken for tax reasons is not discrimination against you for the same reason other laws in your country are not based on the same bronze age book of how to live in a desert.
NOTHING IS BEING TAKEN AWAY. I'm not sure how, even your mind, could presume that opening something up restricts use. You obviously have been told how you think and what to say because you've just given a paragraph that looks suspiciously copy and pasted.
Oh nos, th lust!
Sorry, we should definitely keep all the blacks back at their plantation so children don't associate them with Freemen.
Are you irony resistant?
Thanks, but one is a fictional character and the other is a grade A twat.
Good thing you got them laws over there then isn't it eh.
Nobody asked you to... you know, other than all them damn tattoo parlours and sellers of shellfish.
Freedom of religion, not freedom for religion you silly regurgitator. Your country is secular. Your laws are secular not religious, you are a republic not a theocracy. The civil state has decided civil rights apply to another section of its citizens in a civil matter with no relation to your cult at all.
Well it certainly made anything else you have to say suspect from the start.
Oh look, a religious nut who thinks sex is perverse. I am surprise!
It wasn't not implied either, nor was the opposite, but it's nice you didn't add in a little message for him though, you exceeded my expectations there.
Sexuality and all relationships are character development.
Wow, not often I see that sort of ending outside of those people who come to my door trying to sell me a second hand god from some Jewish guys.
But it's nice you feel able to spread your love...
...Well, except to g.ay people obviously, but who cares about them?
I'm sure this is exactly the reply @angrytarg was thinking of when they wrote their comment. It's so nice to see people like this exist, it's lovely to get a yard stick of social evolution in practice
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Interestingly, note how he mentioned Roy Moore in his post? He's a State Justice who was fired for passing a judgement ruling same-sex marriage immoral, even after a Federal Court ruled the judgement unconstitutional the last time he tried to push it. He was fired for violating legal ethics (allowing personal beliefs to override the law), not for being Christian or Homophobic. His judgement explicitly ruled the matter 'immoral'. As a judge, he can only make judgements based on the law, not morality (the two are not necessarily identical). He acted unprofessionally, as simple as that.
Now, regarding your post... Dude... What... The... Hell? I get that he was being extremely excessive and intolerant, but not all Christians are like that! I should know, I am one! Your post comes off as, honestly, hurtful.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
It's mainly an attack to him personally, but ideas drive people. I can separate christianity from Christians, but it's Christianity that has formed the basis for his views.
If other Christians can form better ones from the same basis then it's not addressed to them. Every post you've made in this thread has proven that. I apologise if you thought it was an attack on a group or you and not as an attack on an individual.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
(I may be misremembering things, though.)
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Thank you. I can certainly understand that. I've made more than one post on this forum when I was angry and it came off the wrong way to people.
Anyway, back onto the thread topic, if as Jonsills says, Gail Simone and other past writers (who have been writing and developing the character for years) understood that Wonder Woman was bisexual by nature of her origins, then I don't see how that can be a retcon. If the main reason for Sulu being heterosexual was that Gene said so, then the collective views of past WW writers (without whom's contributions WW would be a very different character today) as to her bisexuality should carry just as much weight.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Oh yes, starswordc, as well as ryan218. I'll apologise to two reasonable people.
It also strikes me how much Christianity is based on Paul and not the central figure's teachings. But then again, Paul was the Ur example of using a religion to build and unify an Empire under siege with the Gospels seemingly added as nothing more than an attempt to give Paul all the divine justification (a prequel of sorts) he needed for his own agenda.
Yeah, I've met a person very like this in real life and it's a bit unsettling to encounter in England for reasons we've gone over a few pages ago.
People unwilling to respect human rights rub me the wrong way, especially ones so entrenched for reasons that do not make sense.
Well there's also the fact that bisexuality is even less of a retcon as it covers souch a wide array of sexualaties from 'if it's you it's okay' to 'I'm going home with somebody tonight and I don't care who'. It's perfectly possible to be bisexual and only ever formed straight romantic relationships, or only g.ay.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I think a lot of it comes from right-wing Christians simply not getting any real exposure to other viewpoints growing up and getting into groupthink: there's nothing stupider than a large group of people. Whereas me, I grew up Protestant (Presbyterian, then Methodist), but one of my uncles is a Reform rabbi and another is Wiccan, and my best friend in fifth grade was a gaming buddy who was Baha'i (and I wish to heck I could find him on Facebook).
I'm not going to get into specifics on that, but there's certainly been a lot of blood shed falsely in the name of Christ, a pacifist Jewish Palestinian who supported the poor and racial equality. But, that can be said of pretty much any system of thought: people don't need a reason to be d*cks to one another, but it sure makes it easier to have a reason.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Where, exactly, is this happening? Because it sure as frak ain't here in the good ol' U. S. of A., my friend. And somehow I don't really think we have that many STO players from, say, Iran or western Pakistan.
Christianity isn't the problem, the problem is Christian leaders who exploit, misinterpret, and misrepresent the bible to push their conservative idiocy on others. These people are no better than those who exploit, misinterpret, and misrepresent Islam to convince people to conduct terrorism. However, these people do not represent all or even most Christians, just like islamic terrorists only represent less than 1 percent of Muslims.
I myself am Christian, but am about as left as you can get on all issues except guns and military spending. Blaming christianity itself for these things is simply incorrect, it's conservatives (religious or otherwise) who are the problem.
Being offended or p*ssed off are a choice... Yes, something/someone may be offensive, but it's for the other party to either allow themselves to be offended by it, or chose to rise above it. See Stephen Fry's thoughts on 'being offended', he sums it up perfectly...
I frequently say things that would probably earn me the SJW label (especially on the WoW forums ... it's bad over there), but I never say someone can't say something, I always say that they shouldn't.
The reason I tell people they shouldn't say things is first, I don't want any of my fellow gamers to be uncomfortable because of their race, gender, sexuality, or religion. Second, I don't want my kids reading some of the offensive things I've seen and thinking it is acceptable to treat people horribly.
I think we're in need of a refresher course here. Hit it, Munroe!
Alt text: "I can't remember where I heard this, but defending a position by citing free speech is kind of the ultimate concession: you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Also, for the record, I'm not fussed if I come across as an a55hole... I'm hardly alone in that, and to be honest, I would rather be thought an a55hole for being honest about my opinion(s) than tolerated for saying what others want to hear... But as for your lack of tolerance for other people's opinions which differ from yours, you're just proving my point...
So, in other words, your only response to the argument is to attack the method by which the argument was made instead of addressing it. Got it. Also:
Slippery slope fallacy. Just because X happens doesn't automatically mean that Y or Z will. You can tell somebody off for using racial or religious slurs and still be fine with them expressing their political views; it's not either/or.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
There was never a statement implying anything that would support your comment, "So you don't believe in freedom of speech." In fact, the posted comic supports Free Speech. Free speech not only applies to those who want to express their views, but to those who tell the speaker that his ideas are rubbish.
This tactic is deplorable, and yet it grows more common over time: those who express unpopular views then turn around and label those who disagree with them as intolerant.
Why must base motives be assigned to people who do not agree with you? People of good intent can disagree without one or the other being evil. Your post is a sad expose of intolerance on your part, not on his.
Wow, you and I actually agreed on something. Isn't that a sign of the apocalypse? O.O
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
And yes, the comic does support it, with the last two cells being a snarky attack on 'you', or whoever is directed to read it. The implications of those cells, I not only find unnecessary, but also massively hypocritical, when coming from someone who repeatedly ghost-posts for a banned former forum member, thus breaching the forum's rules on circumventing a ban...
I have no issue with agreeing to disagree with someone, but there is nothing 'deplorable' in pointing out the intellectual fascism which self-appointed bastions of morality try and enforce upon others by deeming things 'problematic'. The behaviour of those people is intolerance, because it is intolerance of an idea they disagree with. There's no emotional or semantic juggling which can disguise the fact, that the so-called SJWs are every bit as intolerant, if not more so, of those they disagree with, coupled with the self-righteous indignation of their echo-chamber social structures.
No, I don't deny that I consider freedom of speech to include my right to tell other speakers what they can go do with their views and otherwise refuse to simply put up with them.
Why should I?
Are you offended by that?
The knife cuts both ways, pal.
And in regards to ghost-posting for a banned forum member? I did that once, so he could participate in a literary challenge, and requested feedback from the moderators on whether such was acceptable (and have yet to receive any in either direction).
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/