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
Could you point out where "special treatment" does not mean "equal treatment" without using extremists as an example?
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
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
Could you point out where "special treatment" does not mean "equal treatment" without using extremists as an example?
Not exactly a minority, but I suspect something similar to what some feminists seem to want (and/or what institutionalized responses try to give). Instead of simply going for "okay, women can be just as capable as men, so let's judge people by their competence rather than their gender", they pursue the much more nonsensical solution of "give women equal representation in a given workplace based on whether they want to do it, not whether they're more competent than the male candidates" - or go to even greater extremes.
IIRC there's been a few instances of government-mandated quotas (in Croatia, at least - not too familiar with the situation elsewhere) that achieve the latter because they either can't think of a way to enforce the former or don't want to deal with it properly.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Speaking for anyone but myself would be daring, but as far as I'm concerned I cannot recall any respectable feminist ever calling for quotas. However, as far as institutionalized responses go I will agree with you, actionism like quotas is easy and by it's very nature least effective in actually achieving a goal. One could argue that quota or not, more women hold higher positions now and the influence they have might be beneficial but I cannot present anything to support that claim. On the other hoof, claiming that a big group of people do not get to work because they're pushed out by the quota seems to me equally questionable but again, I don't have any evidence to support that. Is the incresed presence due to quotas in the end effective simply due to bringing the affected groups "out in the open" and thus helping recognition in the long run? Who knows. Spite is provocated in any case, it's natural. Any change calls for a reaction. For example, is the claim that no women apply for the job and thus the quota cannot be fulfilled really justified or would, without the quota, nothing change because the topic wouldn't be one in the first place?
Most people responding with spite against any form of equal treatment do so out of fear of change. There is literally no rational argument that could justify any form of discrimination. But since our societies do discriminate, massively, it is the status quo and changes are objected in principle. Advertising the inclusion of minorities in a piece of work or introducing quotas might not be the "right" way to do it, but maybe ultiamtely the result (and in Beyonds case, the actual execution in the movie had nothing of the hype that was made previously) is worth it as societal recognition is slowly changed.
What I personally had a problem with is the term "special treatment" as it is used by reactionaires to deny equal civil rights without any justification whatsoever. There are clumsy and questionable ways to advocate for change, no debate here. But ultimately they might simply help "normalizing" things.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Speaking for anyone but myself would be daring, but as far as I'm concerned I cannot recall any respectable feminist ever calling for quotas.
Maybe it's not the respectable ones.
Besides, there's always the "or even greater extremes" part.
However, as far as institutionalized responses go I will agree with you, actionism like quotas is easy and by it's very nature least effective in actually achieving a goal. One could argue that quota or not, more women hold higher positions now and the influence they have might be beneficial but I cannot present anything to support that claim.
Ultimately, the most important question is whether the quota benefits the ones that are capable of performing the job, or just shoehorns someone into a position they don't deserve. (Can't think of any examples for either scenario, especially ones that would be met with universal agreement. )
On the other hoof, claiming that a big group of people do not get to work because they're pushed out by the quota seems to me equally questionable but again, I don't have any evidence to support that.
Nor do I.
For example, is the claim that no women apply for the job and thus the quota cannot be fulfilled really justified or would, without the quota, nothing change because the topic wouldn't be one in the first place?
I haven't made any such claims, but it is an interesting scenario to look at.
What response does the hypothetical lack of female applicants receive? Do you lower your standards (if they hadn't been explicitly removed when the quota was instituted), do you ignore the quota and just go with whatever else you have, or do you leave the job open until the quota can be satisfied?
Most people responding with spite against any form of equal treatment do so out of fear of change. There is literally no rational argument that could justify any form of discrimination. But since our societies do discriminate, massively, it is the status quo and changes are objected in principle.
Yes, one can far too easily fall into the trap of claiming "But this is how it's always been!" is a rational argument...
Advertising the inclusion of minorities in a piece of work or introducing quotas might not be the "right" way to do it, but maybe ultiamtely the result (and in Beyonds case, the actual execution in the movie had nothing of the hype that was made previously) is worth it as societal recognition is slowly changed.
I still feel that Cryptic's approach was light years beyond (no pun intended) what happened with Sulu, if for no other reason than that they acted like it was perfectly normal rather than putting up a sign saying "Oh look at us, we're pushing boundaries!" If Paramount or whoever weren't deliberately trying to stir up trouble for the sake of free PR, then they made the stupid mistake of making it look like they were.
It's still entirely possible that House Pegh was meant to start a debate for the same reasons as Sulu - but even if that's the case, they at least made a token attempt to take the high ground while doing so.
What I personally had a problem with is the term "special treatment" as it is used by reactionaires to deny equal civil rights without any justification whatsoever. There are clumsy and questionable ways to advocate for change, no debate here. But ultimately they might simply help "normalizing" things.
Well, things like quotas and token characters are special treatment. What future generations need to learn is to act natural - or, perhaps more unambiguously, act rational - rather than learning that everyone except straight white men needs to be represented everywhere on the basis of "equality".
The tricky part is probably getting that lesson to stick without damaging it in the process. Doesn't seem we've figured that one out yet.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Speaking for anyone but myself would be daring, but as far as I'm concerned I cannot recall any respectable feminist ever calling for quotas. However, as far as institutionalized responses go I will agree with you, actionism like quotas is easy and by it's very nature least effective in actually achieving a goal. One could argue that quota or not, more women hold higher positions now and the influence they have might be beneficial but I cannot present anything to support that claim. On the other hoof, claiming that a big group of people do not get to work because they're pushed out by the quota seems to me equally questionable but again, I don't have any evidence to support that. Is the incresed presence due to quotas in the end effective simply due to bringing the affected groups "out in the open" and thus helping recognition in the long run? Who knows. Spite is provocated in any case, it's natural. Any change calls for a reaction. For example, is the claim that no women apply for the job and thus the quota cannot be fulfilled really justified or would, without the quota, nothing change because the topic wouldn't be one in the first place?
Most people responding with spite against any form of equal treatment do so out of fear of change. There is literally no rational argument that could justify any form of discrimination. But since our societies do discriminate, massively, it is the status quo and changes are objected in principle. Advertising the inclusion of minorities in a piece of work or introducing quotas might not be the "right" way to do it, but maybe ultiamtely the result (and in Beyonds case, the actual execution in the movie had nothing of the hype that was made previously) is worth it as societal recognition is slowly changed.
What I personally had a problem with is the term "special treatment" as it is used by reactionaires to deny equal civil rights without any justification whatsoever. There are clumsy and questionable ways to advocate for change, no debate here. But ultimately they might simply help "normalizing" things.
Sadly not many of those around the internets these days, just a lot of angry misandrists who fill themselves with anti-male rhetoric in 'female studies' classes, then regurgitate it at any male unfortunate enough to cross their path...
(Says someone who's circle of friends is probably 85% female... and who thinks everyone should be treated equally regardless what demographic they fit into...)
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good. Take the scene in DS9 between Dax and Dr Khan, for example. It was pretty obvious and pretty clear what the message was, but transmitting the message was left to the episode itself. With Beyond, they revealed they were sending the message before anyone even saw the film and deliberately drew attention to it, which only made people more closed to recieving that message, because the people who were still open to the message after that twitte post are the same people who would have been open either way, while many people who would have been open to it otherwise are now closed because, by and large, people don't like being preached to. That, and announcing it like that was just asking for backlash. If you're going to send a pro-equality message, let that message speak for itself, don't speak for it.
^ That's spot on. Take Uhura on TOS as a perfect example of this. She was a very capable bridge officer and important member of the crew. There was no need to try and force feed her to the audience as an African American woman. She was there, she did her job and she did it exceedingly well. That spoke volumes.
Oddly, that's exactly how Gene got her on the show - "force feeding her as an African American woman", that is. (Well, African, anyway...) Reportedly, he was only able to cast her after telling the PTB that he "wanted to add a little color to the bridge." They apparently thought he meant redressing the set, and by the time they saw Nichelle, three episodes had been filmed. (According to Nichelle's memoirs, the studio attempted to retaliate by refusing to hire her on - so they wound up paying SAG day rates for every episode she appeared on, which cost them more.)
Still hoping for some specific examples of these "special privileges", though - if it's that common, it should be easy to find, yes?
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good. Take the scene in DS9 between Dax and Dr Khan, for example. It was pretty obvious and pretty clear what the message was, but transmitting the message was left to the episode itself. With Beyond, they revealed they were sending the message before anyone even saw the film and deliberately drew attention to it, which only made people more closed to recieving that message, because the people who were still open to the message after that twitte post are the same people who would have been open either way, while many people who would have been open to it otherwise are now closed because, by and large, people don't like being preached to. That, and announcing it like that was just asking for backlash. If you're going to send a pro-equality message, let that message speak for itself, don't speak for it.
^ That's spot on. Take Uhura on TOS as a perfect example of this. She was a very capable bridge officer and important member of the crew. There was no need to try and force feed her to the audience as an African American woman. She was there, she did her job and she did it exceedingly well. That spoke volumes.
Today, it seems everyone needs to be louder about things, you just can't do it as if it was the most natural thing of the world.
But I have doubts that ST:Beyond sold one more or one ticket less for pointing this scene out. The scene itself was nicely done and a wonderful bit of world- and character-building happening via background scenes. Just like Uhura and Checkov were in TOS.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Speaking for anyone but myself would be daring, but as far as I'm concerned I cannot recall any respectable feminist ever calling for quotas.
Maybe it's not the respectable ones.
Besides, there's always the "or even greater extremes" part.
However, as far as institutionalized responses go I will agree with you, actionism like quotas is easy and by it's very nature least effective in actually achieving a goal. One could argue that quota or not, more women hold higher positions now and the influence they have might be beneficial but I cannot present anything to support that claim.
Ultimately, the most important question is whether the quota benefits the ones that are capable of performing the job, or just shoehorns someone into a position they don't deserve. (Can't think of any examples for either scenario, especially ones that would be met with universal agreement. )
On the other hoof, claiming that a big group of people do not get to work because they're pushed out by the quota seems to me equally questionable but again, I don't have any evidence to support that.
Nor do I.
For example, is the claim that no women apply for the job and thus the quota cannot be fulfilled really justified or would, without the quota, nothing change because the topic wouldn't be one in the first place?
I haven't made any such claims, but it is an interesting scenario to look at.
What response does the hypothetical lack of female applicants receive? Do you lower your standards (if they hadn't been explicitly removed when the quota was instituted), do you ignore the quota and just go with whatever else you have, or do you leave the job open until the quota can be satisfied?
I was actually thinking of RACIAL quotas. But again it leads to that sticky mess of forcing employers to hire Unqualified people that the employer has NO reason to believe can do the job. And lets face it... forcing employers to hire people gives the employer a reason to wait for excuses to fire the person you forced them to hire. And in the case of people who weren't actually qualified in the first place... yeah.
Well, things like quotas and token characters are special treatment. What future generations need to learn is to act natural - or, perhaps more unambiguously, act rational - rather than learning that everyone except straight white men needs to be represented everywhere on the basis of "equality".
The tricky part is probably getting that lesson to stick without damaging it in the process. Doesn't seem we've figured that one out yet.
I think the best approach is apathy.
Seriously... if someone's ethnic origin is REALLY no more important than their height or the color of their skin.... then why are you going to so much effort to try to force people to pay attention to it?
Seriously... if someone's ethnic origin is REALLY no more important than their height or the color of their skin.... then why are you going to so much effort to try to force people to pay attention to it?
This, is the very best example of the flawed joke that 'Social Justice' actually is....
SJWs like to be all 'tolerant' and insist that Person A can't behave in a certain way towards Person B, because Person B is [insert minority of choice here] On the surface, sounds reasonable, hey, they're standing up for the ______ because they're _____, and standing up for people's Cool...
Right?
But the issue, is that they are only seeing that person because they are _____. The only way they are acknowledging and defining Person B, is by their minority... So much for just viewing someone As A Person and standing up for them if they need it...
It is however entirely based on assumptions about made-up people that all somehow work the same.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
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 behaviours of other people doesn't require telepathy... I was also being sarcastic, although the fundamental principle, I was being serious about... Behavioural 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 behaviour/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...
The writer of the reborn "Wonder Woman" comics has revealed that the character is ****.
Greg Rucka tells Comicosity that since Wonder Woman comes from the fictional all-female island nation of Themyscira, she "has been in love and had relationships with other women."
Not sure I can ever understand the necessity of being historical revisionists when it comes to characters with a 70+ year history. Doesn't that stifle creativity?
Your links don't work anymore, but my take from what you've posted is that she is at least bisexual, and not necessarily a les.bian, as loving and having relationships with other women does not automatically exclude men as a potential interest, and the trailers gave me the impression there was something between her and Chris Pine's character.
However, if it turns out that she is indeed a les.bian, and not bisexual, I won't care. This isn't the comic book rendition of the character, so it's not a revision or a retcon, it's simply a different version of the character that exists in an alternate universe.
It's the same as Ultimate X-Men Collosus being g.ay, which also didn't bother me. It's only things like what happened with Iceman, where a version of a character previously established as straight is retconned to be g.ay, that I get annoyed, and only because I dislike unnecesary retcons of that magnitude.
EDIT: I feel compelled to voice my opinion yet again that i find it highly offensive that the words g.ay and les.bian are censored on these forums.
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...
Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
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"
Comments
Could you point out where "special treatment" does not mean "equal treatment" without using extremists as an example?
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Not exactly a minority, but I suspect something similar to what some feminists seem to want (and/or what institutionalized responses try to give). Instead of simply going for "okay, women can be just as capable as men, so let's judge people by their competence rather than their gender", they pursue the much more nonsensical solution of "give women equal representation in a given workplace based on whether they want to do it, not whether they're more competent than the male candidates" - or go to even greater extremes.
IIRC there's been a few instances of government-mandated quotas (in Croatia, at least - not too familiar with the situation elsewhere) that achieve the latter because they either can't think of a way to enforce the former or don't want to deal with it properly.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Most people responding with spite against any form of equal treatment do so out of fear of change. There is literally no rational argument that could justify any form of discrimination. But since our societies do discriminate, massively, it is the status quo and changes are objected in principle. Advertising the inclusion of minorities in a piece of work or introducing quotas might not be the "right" way to do it, but maybe ultiamtely the result (and in Beyonds case, the actual execution in the movie had nothing of the hype that was made previously) is worth it as societal recognition is slowly changed.
What I personally had a problem with is the term "special treatment" as it is used by reactionaires to deny equal civil rights without any justification whatsoever. There are clumsy and questionable ways to advocate for change, no debate here. But ultimately they might simply help "normalizing" things.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Maybe it's not the respectable ones.
Besides, there's always the "or even greater extremes" part.
Ultimately, the most important question is whether the quota benefits the ones that are capable of performing the job, or just shoehorns someone into a position they don't deserve. (Can't think of any examples for either scenario, especially ones that would be met with universal agreement.
Nor do I.
I haven't made any such claims, but it is an interesting scenario to look at.
What response does the hypothetical lack of female applicants receive? Do you lower your standards (if they hadn't been explicitly removed when the quota was instituted), do you ignore the quota and just go with whatever else you have, or do you leave the job open until the quota can be satisfied?
Yes, one can far too easily fall into the trap of claiming "But this is how it's always been!" is a rational argument...
I still feel that Cryptic's approach was light years beyond (no pun intended) what happened with Sulu, if for no other reason than that they acted like it was perfectly normal rather than putting up a sign saying "Oh look at us, we're pushing boundaries!" If Paramount or whoever weren't deliberately trying to stir up trouble for the sake of free PR, then they made the stupid mistake of making it look like they were.
It's still entirely possible that House Pegh was meant to start a debate for the same reasons as Sulu - but even if that's the case, they at least made a token attempt to take the high ground while doing so.
Well, things like quotas and token characters are special treatment. What future generations need to learn is to act natural - or, perhaps more unambiguously, act rational - rather than learning that everyone except straight white men needs to be represented everywhere on the basis of "equality".
The tricky part is probably getting that lesson to stick without damaging it in the process. Doesn't seem we've figured that one out yet.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
(Says someone who's circle of friends is probably 85% female... and who thinks everyone should be treated equally regardless what demographic they fit into...)
Still hoping for some specific examples of these "special privileges", though - if it's that common, it should be easy to find, yes?
Today, it seems everyone needs to be louder about things, you just can't do it as if it was the most natural thing of the world.
But I have doubts that ST:Beyond sold one more or one ticket less for pointing this scene out. The scene itself was nicely done and a wonderful bit of world- and character-building happening via background scenes. Just like Uhura and Checkov were in TOS.
Seriously... if someone's ethnic origin is REALLY no more important than their height or the color of their skin.... then why are you going to so much effort to try to force people to pay attention to it?
My character Tsin'xing
SJWs like to be all 'tolerant' and insist that Person A can't behave in a certain way towards Person B, because Person B is [insert minority of choice here] On the surface, sounds reasonable, hey, they're standing up for the ______ because they're _____, and standing up for people's Cool...
Right?
But the issue, is that they are only seeing that person because they are _____. The only way they are acknowledging and defining Person B, is by their minority...
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
It is however entirely based on assumptions about made-up people that all somehow work the same.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
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
Your links don't work anymore, but my take from what you've posted is that she is at least bisexual, and not necessarily a les.bian, as loving and having relationships with other women does not automatically exclude men as a potential interest, and the trailers gave me the impression there was something between her and Chris Pine's character.
However, if it turns out that she is indeed a les.bian, and not bisexual, I won't care. This isn't the comic book rendition of the character, so it's not a revision or a retcon, it's simply a different version of the character that exists in an alternate universe.
It's the same as Ultimate X-Men Collosus being g.ay, which also didn't bother me. It's only things like what happened with Iceman, where a version of a character previously established as straight is retconned to be g.ay, that I get annoyed, and only because I dislike unnecesary retcons of that magnitude.
EDIT: I feel compelled to voice my opinion yet again that i find it highly offensive that the words g.ay and les.bian are censored on these forums.
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...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
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/