(...)
It was bad enough when all those foreigners were coming for our women, but now our own women are coming for our women, too!!!11oneoneeleven
Yes yes, they do
EDIT: Regarding the Takei discussion and I think @jonsills pointed that out (sorry if I mix that up), George Takei did not "request" or "protest" anything. What he did was stating that neither he nor Gene Roddenberry intented or viewed Sulu as homosexual. He also thought of writing Sulu to be **** for the reason of Takei being **** was an unlucky choice. And I agree with him because it does create that awkwardness and flavour of token character and especially the notion of making a character homosexual because the actor who portrayed him is very blunt. Takei is however pleased to finally see a homosexual character in Star Trek, and I agree with him, let alone being portrayed in such a casual and inclusive way. Still, the choice remains questionable in my opinion because it was ultimately a clumsy choice.
However, this has nothing to do with people whining about "SJWs" and twisting things around so somehow they are suddenly victims of non-straight character appearing in media. I completely agree that sexuality is rarely relevant for a piece of fiction and the character in question, however it does feel good to see natural inclusion of homosexuality in popular culture. Accept it, it won't go away.
Once again, I have no issue with the content. I want to see more natural inclusion of homosexuality in pop culture. But no matter how much inclusion there is, bigots are only ever going to see it as 'pushing an agenda', and it needs to be done subtely... Showing it in the background of a story as the irrelevance it is, not TweetLeak about it prior to release going "Ooh, ooh, Look what I did! I wrote about teh gheys!!!" in the hopes of getting attention... That's not treating the subject with respect or doing anything to help broaden acceptance, it's treating the subject as something unusual enough to be considered noteworthy enough to use as clickbait... I'm not objecting to the content, I'm objecting to how the subject is being handled and presented, and how it shows that sadly, attitudes toward the subject still have a long way to go...
[Edit to add] I believe that in his first posting about the subject, he said that he had asked them not to do so (because he felt it would be better to create a new character)
On this part, I agree with you. As ashrod pointed out above, British Media has been treating homosexuality as perfectly normal fr years (there was virtually no publicisation of Jack Harkness' bisexuality, despite it being fairly obvious) and it has been very subtle and not 'loud'. The British public are acclimated to it, we don't particularly care. The US, however, seems to still have this love affair with 'affirmative action' - the idea that the best way to generate acceptance for minorities is to give it more exposure than the status quo, rather than equal or proportional exposure (which, ironically, has often been demonstrated to have the exact opposite effect). I do believe Beyond would have done far better not publicising Sulu's sexuality before the film's release. It was very clear, but very subtly managed in the film itself. Publicising it was just asking for backlash.
(...)
It was bad enough when all those foreigners were coming for our women, but now our own women are coming for our women, too!!!11oneoneeleven
Yes yes, they do
EDIT: Regarding the Takei discussion and I think @jonsills pointed that out (sorry if I mix that up), George Takei did not "request" or "protest" anything. What he did was stating that neither he nor Gene Roddenberry intented or viewed Sulu as homosexual. He also thought of writing Sulu to be **** for the reason of Takei being **** was an unlucky choice. And I agree with him because it does create that awkwardness and flavour of token character and especially the notion of making a character homosexual because the actor who portrayed him is very blunt. Takei is however pleased to finally see a homosexual character in Star Trek, and I agree with him, let alone being portrayed in such a casual and inclusive way. Still, the choice remains questionable in my opinion because it was ultimately a clumsy choice.
However, this has nothing to do with people whining about "SJWs" and twisting things around so somehow they are suddenly victims of non-straight character appearing in media. I completely agree that sexuality is rarely relevant for a piece of fiction and the character in question, however it does feel good to see natural inclusion of homosexuality in popular culture. Accept it, it won't go away.
Once again, I have no issue with the content. I want to see more natural inclusion of homosexuality in pop culture. But no matter how much inclusion there is, bigots are only ever going to see it as 'pushing an agenda', and it needs to be done subtely... Showing it in the background of a story as the irrelevance it is, not TweetLeak about it prior to release going "Ooh, ooh, Look what I did! I wrote about teh gheys!!!" in the hopes of getting attention... That's not treating the subject with respect or doing anything to help broaden acceptance, it's treating the subject as something unusual enough to be considered noteworthy enough to use as clickbait... I'm not objecting to the content, I'm objecting to how the subject is being handled and presented, and how it shows that sadly, attitudes toward the subject still have a long way to go...
[Edit to add] I believe that in his first posting about the subject, he said that he had asked them not to do so (because he felt it would be better to create a new character)
On this part, I agree with you. As ashrod pointed out above, British Media has been treating homosexuality as perfectly normal fr years (there was virtually no publicisation of Jack Harkness' bisexuality, despite it being fairly obvious) and it has been very subtle and not 'loud'. The British public are acclimated to it, we don't particularly care. The US, however, seems to still have this love affair with 'affirmative action' - the idea that the best way to generate acceptance for minorities is to give it more exposure than the status quo, rather than equal or proportional exposure (which, ironically, has often been demonstrated to have the exact opposite effect). I do believe Beyond would have done far better not publicising Sulu's sexuality before the film's release. It was very clear, but very subtly managed in the film itself. Publicising it was just asking for backlash.
Absolutely so, I agree with you on all those points The one thing I would add, is a reminder to the point I made a page or so back, that Jack is also an example of needlesslyy retconning a character's sexuality, from his clear 'any hole's a goal' pansexuality throughout his Doctor Who/early Torchwood appearances, to his being full-on g.ay in Miracle Day, which IMHO detracted from the thing which made him a universally appealing character, and was also going directly against Barrowman's stated opinion of Jack...
The past 50 years of Star Trek and the Star Wars franchise disagree with you.
There are a number of people who feel that The Force Awakens is little more than a retelling of A New Hope. I'm not entirely convinced they're wrong.
For that matter, ST:TMP is a rehash of the TOS episodes "Obsession" and "The Changeling". And much of the first season of TNG rehashed TOS episodes, including one, "The Naked Now", that was a direct copy-paste of "The Naked Time".
I haven't got the patience to point out how many Trek plots are retreads of other Trek plots (save to note that it was fun when Q interacted with Sisko, because Sisko didn't have the time to indulge Q's little games). You could do the legwork yourself, were you of a mind to...
If it has no impact on the story and does not advance characterization, then please leave it out. Here is an example of why:
In the book Tom Sawyer, Tom and Huckleberry Finn spend a lot of time together, and this relationship is continued through sequels. I could easily assume Tom and Huck are experimenting when the writer skips over a time block. Mark Twain could even have written that into the book, (which would have never been published given the mores of the time,) but such a relationship would have had no impact on the story otherwise.
Sam Clemens did develop the relationship between Tom and Becky Thatcher in the denouement of Tom Sawyer as a part of demonstrating how Tom's youthful wildness evolves and mutates over time into maturity, which does impact the development of story and character.
Were the same book to be written today it might be that Tom and Huck are lovers and Becky is just a good friend who needed rescue from Native American Joe's cave where his treasured pre-Columbian artifacts were hidden to prevent their theft and sale on the black market. In this case, Tom and Huck's budding romance could be used rather than Becky's to close the book.
Lots of things are left out of fiction for this reason, and I argue they should be. If Wonder Woman likes girls, that is frankly none of my business until it impacts the story. When the villain attacks her family to get at her, with whom she sleeps becomes important. Otherwise, it is simple pandering to a specific segment of the audience.
If it has no impact on the story and does not advance characterization, then please leave it out. Here is an example of why:
In the book Tom Sawyer, Tom and Huckleberry Finn spend a lot of time together, and this relationship is continued through sequels. I could easily assume Tom and Huck are experimenting when the writer skips over a time block. Mark Twain could even have written that into the book, (which would have never been published given the mores of the time,) but such a relationship would have had no impact on the story otherwise.
Sam Clemens did develop the relationship between Tom and Becky Thatcher in the denouement of Tom Sawyer as a part of demonstrating how Tom's youthful wildness evolves and mutates over time into maturity, which does impact the development of story and character.
Were the same book to be written today it might be that Tom and Huck are lovers and Becky is just a good friend who needed rescue from Native American Joe's cave where his treasured pre-Columbian artifacts were hidden to prevent their theft and sale on the black market. In this case, Tom and Huck's budding romance could be used rather than Becky's to close the book.
Lots of things are left out of fiction for this reason, and I argue they should be. If Wonder Woman likes girls, that is frankly none of my business until it impacts the story. When the villain attacks her family to get at her, with whom she sleeps becomes important. Otherwise, it is simple pandering to a specific segment of the audience.
Sweet Jesus! I actually agree with everything you've said!
Lots of things are left out of fiction for this reason, and I argue they should be. If Wonder Woman likes girls, that is frankly none of my business until it impacts the story. When the villain attacks her family to get at her, with whom she sleeps becomes important. Otherwise, it is simple pandering to a specific segment of the audience.
So basically all relationships of a character, whether friendship straight or otherwise are to be kept as implications and innuendo unless absolutely necessary for the plot?
Sounds like a narrow world with no world building going on. Unless you're just playing the card where it's specifically g.ay romantic relationships you want kept as inferred whereas platonic and straight ones can be out in the open at all times are they are in close to 100% of all media.
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
Lots of things are left out of fiction for this reason, and I argue they should be. If Wonder Woman likes girls, that is frankly none of my business until it impacts the story. When the villain attacks her family to get at her, with whom she sleeps becomes important. Otherwise, it is simple pandering to a specific segment of the audience.
So basically all relationships of a character, whether friendship straight or otherwise are to be kept as implications and innuendo unless absolutely necessary for the plot?
Sounds like a narrow world with no world building going on. Unless you're just playing the card where it's specifically g.ay romantic relationships you want kept as inferred whereas platonic and straight ones can be out in the open at all times are they are in close to 100% of all media.
[sarcasm]Naturally, I stated it as an inalterable absolute. One should always assume any statement made should apply in every case, especially when it clearly does not.[/sarcasm]
My definition and yours of what is absolutely necessary for a story are quite obviously different, and were you and I to write the exact same story, (say we both witnessed an auto accident and were writing about it,) we would emphasize completely different details. It is for the writer to decide what to include in his work. I stated my on opinion what I want to read, not an authoritarian discourse on what I will allow in fiction writing.
In my given example, had Mark Twain written about Tom and Becky's relationship without making it an important plot point I would have the same issue: irrelavent, distracting, and pandering. It has nothing to do with social bias and everything to do with creating the kind of fiction I enjoy reading.
Your final sentence displays your bias far more clearly than it does mine. I chose the Huck/Becky contrast as an example with which the majority of readers of English will be familiar, not as an example of which kinds of relationships should be allowed, and I then said,
Were the same book to be written today it might be that Tom and Huck are lovers and Becky is just a good friend...
You are entitled to your views, whatever they may be. You are not entitled to re-write my views so you can then denegrate me based on what you wrote.
Lots of things are left out of fiction for this reason, and I argue they should be. If Wonder Woman likes girls, that is frankly none of my business until it impacts the story. When the villain attacks her family to get at her, with whom she sleeps becomes important. Otherwise, it is simple pandering to a specific segment of the audience.
So basically all relationships of a character, whether friendship straight or otherwise are to be kept as implications and innuendo unless absolutely necessary for the plot?
Sounds like a narrow world with no world building going on. Unless you're just playing the card where it's specifically g.ay romantic relationships you want kept as inferred whereas platonic and straight ones can be out in the open at all times are they are in close to 100% of all media.
Look at Superman for the longest time - did he "love" Lois, or was it a "game" or whatever?
I vaguely think it was the '80s, if not '90s, where Superman finally started "settling down" with Lois, even though it was then inferred that he "had a crush" on her the entire time and the usual "didn't want anyone to know because of how much trouble it would bring her yada yada..."
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?
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]
The past 50 years of Star Trek and the Star Wars franchise disagree with you.
There are a number of people who feel that The Force Awakens is little more than a retelling of A New Hope. I'm not entirely convinced they're wrong.
For that matter, ST:TMP is a rehash of the TOS episodes "Obsession" and "The Changeling". And much of the first season of TNG rehashed TOS episodes, including one, "The Naked Now", that was a direct copy-paste of "The Naked Time".
I've heard the same being said of SW6 too. So it's not exactly a new thing for the franchise.
On this part, I agree with you. As ashrod pointed out above, British Media has been treating homosexuality as perfectly normal fr years (there was virtually no publicisation of Jack Harkness' bisexuality, despite it being fairly obvious) and it has been very subtle and not 'loud'. The British public are acclimated to it, we don't particularly care. The US, however, seems to still have this love affair with 'affirmative action' - the idea that the best way to generate acceptance for minorities is to give it more exposure than the status quo, rather than equal or proportional exposure (which, ironically, has often been demonstrated to have the exact opposite effect). I do believe Beyond would have done far better not publicising Sulu's sexuality before the film's release. It was very clear, but very subtly managed in the film itself. Publicising it was just asking for backlash.
I think the difference is that the equal rights side really hasn't got a solid victory yet on this side of the Atlantic, whether it's on LGBT rights or racial equality. There's still a politically powerful and very vocal minority here in the States that is opposed to granting any rights at all to LGBTs, and in fourteen states you could still get arrested for sodomy as late as 2003 (which was when SCOTUS finally ruled sodomy laws unconstitutional). And I live in North Carolina, where the General Assembly set off a string of huge legal fights just in the past four years by passing voting restrictions openly targeted against black and Latino voters (if for no other reason than because they tend to vote for the other major party), never mind the whole HB2 hullabaloo this year.
So Stateside, I look at it from a considerably different perspective from you Brits. I see it as Star Trek and other speculative fiction carrying on the tradition of directly challenging the "good old days". As the song says, "The good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems" (thank you, Billy).
The past 50 years of Star Trek and the Star Wars franchise disagree with you.
There are a number of people who feel that The Force Awakens is little more than a retelling of A New Hope. I'm not entirely convinced they're wrong.
It is a retelling of A New Hope, but not solely the final theatrical version: they took bits and pieces of several different development drafts of the script and threw them in a blender. E.g. one version had the female Skywalker or Starkiller twin be the main protagonist, from whence we get Rey. And the new X-Wings are taken directly from early concept art.
"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"
On this part, I agree with you. As ashrod pointed out above, British Media has been treating homosexuality as perfectly normal fr years (there was virtually no publicisation of Jack Harkness' bisexuality, despite it being fairly obvious) and it has been very subtle and not 'loud'. The British public are acclimated to it, we don't particularly care. The US, however, seems to still have this love affair with 'affirmative action' - the idea that the best way to generate acceptance for minorities is to give it more exposure than the status quo, rather than equal or proportional exposure (which, ironically, has often been demonstrated to have the exact opposite effect). I do believe Beyond would have done far better not publicising Sulu's sexuality before the film's release. It was very clear, but very subtly managed in the film itself. Publicising it was just asking for backlash.
I think the difference is that the equal rights side really hasn't got a solid victory yet on this side of the Atlantic, whether it's on LGBT rights or racial equality. There's still a powerful and very vocal minority here in the States that is opposed to granting any rights at all to LGBTs, and in fourteen states you could still get arrested for sodomy as late as 2003 (which was when SCOTUS finally ruled sodomy laws unconstitutional). And I live in North Carolina, where the General Assembly set off a string of huge legal fights just in the past four years by passing voting restrictions openly targeted against black and Latino voters (if for no other reason than because they tend to vote for the other major party), never mind the whole HB2 hullabaloo this year.
So Stateside, I look at it from a considerably different perspective from you Brits. I see it as Star Trek and other speculative fiction carrying on the tradition of directly challenging the "good old days". As the song says, "The good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems" (thank you, Billy).
The past 50 years of Star Trek and the Star Wars franchise disagree with you.
There are a number of people who feel that The Force Awakens is little more than a retelling of A New Hope. I'm not entirely convinced they're wrong.
It is a retelling of A New Hope, but not solely the final theatrical version: they took bits and pieces of several different development drafts of the script and threw them in a blender. E.g. one version had the female Skywalker or Starkiller twin be the main protagonist, from whence we get Rey. And the new X-Wings are taken directly from early concept art.
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.
BTW, I've studied US Civil Rights for my. A-Level, and what I've seen with regards to affirmative action (the practice of giving preferential treatment to minorities, also known as 'positive discrimination'), that policy has only served to generate resentment and strengthen resistance to civil equality, not address it.
My definition and yours of what is absolutely necessary for a story are quite obviously different, and were you and I to write the exact same story, (say we both witnessed an auto accident and were writing about it,) we would emphasize completely different details. It is for the writer to decide what to include in his work. I stated my on opinion what I want to read, not an authoritarian discourse on what I will allow in fiction writing.
And? You stated your opinion, that does not shield you from counter opinions or critique of said opinion.
You've specifically excluded one particular feature from all others as being superfluous to backstory for no real reason without also providing a counterpoint, such as deciding all romantic relationships are unworthy of backstory or world building.
With no reason for that it's left as a highly selective exclusion.
In my given example, had Mark Twain written about Tom and Becky's relationship without making it an important plot point I would have the same issue: irrelavent, distracting, and pandering. It has nothing to do with social bias and everything to do with creating the kind of fiction I enjoy reading.
And? What does that have to do with Wonder Woman or Star Trek? You've quoted an example of, not something you like in the circumstances it exists, but as a standard.
Characters require depth and motivation, they require personality and most of all, relationships to other characters. Writers are never told to only leave to inference relationships to other characters unless there is a plot related reveal (Vader is Luke's father BTW) except in the case of g.ay characters.
I'm specifically using ST as an example for the reason we're on a ST forum, so how was the enormous plot diversion that Chekov was straight (when the alien woman kicked him out of her quarters) for you? Too on the nose? Pushing an agenda?
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.
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've not rewrite any of your views. There is no strawmanning going on, only a summary
This statement is factually incorrect. You said,
So basically all relationships of a character, whether friendship straight or otherwise are to be kept as implications and innuendo unless absolutely necessary for the plot?
Sounds like a narrow world with no world building going on. Unless you're just playing the card where it's specifically g.ay romantic relationships you want kept as inferred whereas platonic and straight ones can be out in the open at all times are they are in close to 100% of all media.
I said,
If it has no impact on the story and does not advance characterization, then please leave it out.
The observant will recognize that the two statements are not different ways of saying the same thing. You have rewritten what I said so that you could then denigrate me for something I do not and have never believed. The proof of this is when you then infer that I specifically have an agenda regarding what kind of sex is acceptable in fiction, even though I explicitly stated in my post,
Were the same book to be written today it might be that Tom and Huck are lovers and Becky is just a good friend...
which directly contradicts your later assertion that I wanted a particular brand of romance to remain in the dark. It is clear that you either failed to actually read my post before replying to it, or that you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said for your own purposes.
Word building can help characterization and advance the plot, but does not always do so. An extreme example of this can be found in Gormengast, in which nothing much happens in one of the most fantastic worlds ever created in fiction. (If you can find a copy, do read it.) So the real question here is, does the information advance the story through plot or characterization? (Note that characterization of the world, or 'world building,' is still characterization.) If it is only included for the sake of 'inclusiveness,' then it is a divergence from the point of the story, and ultimately only distracts from the story. Such inclusions are nothing more than pandering to a specific audience by the author. It may make the author feel enlightened and readers of that particular bent might think it shows open-mindedness, but it is actually a lowest common denominator gimmick.
If you want to read or write stories which include people of whatever kind you like, go right ahead. I am not anti- anyone. If you want to ship your favorite characters you are likewise free to do so. You are not entitled to re-write the opinions of others to make them appear to be bigots simply because they do not blindly conform to your world view.
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
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]
Comments
On this part, I agree with you. As ashrod pointed out above, British Media has been treating homosexuality as perfectly normal fr years (there was virtually no publicisation of Jack Harkness' bisexuality, despite it being fairly obvious) and it has been very subtle and not 'loud'. The British public are acclimated to it, we don't particularly care. The US, however, seems to still have this love affair with 'affirmative action' - the idea that the best way to generate acceptance for minorities is to give it more exposure than the status quo, rather than equal or proportional exposure (which, ironically, has often been demonstrated to have the exact opposite effect). I do believe Beyond would have done far better not publicising Sulu's sexuality before the film's release. It was very clear, but very subtly managed in the film itself. Publicising it was just asking for backlash.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
For that matter, ST:TMP is a rehash of the TOS episodes "Obsession" and "The Changeling". And much of the first season of TNG rehashed TOS episodes, including one, "The Naked Now", that was a direct copy-paste of "The Naked Time".
In the book Tom Sawyer, Tom and Huckleberry Finn spend a lot of time together, and this relationship is continued through sequels. I could easily assume Tom and Huck are experimenting when the writer skips over a time block. Mark Twain could even have written that into the book, (which would have never been published given the mores of the time,) but such a relationship would have had no impact on the story otherwise.
Sam Clemens did develop the relationship between Tom and Becky Thatcher in the denouement of Tom Sawyer as a part of demonstrating how Tom's youthful wildness evolves and mutates over time into maturity, which does impact the development of story and character.
Were the same book to be written today it might be that Tom and Huck are lovers and Becky is just a good friend who needed rescue from Native American Joe's cave where his treasured pre-Columbian artifacts were hidden to prevent their theft and sale on the black market. In this case, Tom and Huck's budding romance could be used rather than Becky's to close the book.
Lots of things are left out of fiction for this reason, and I argue they should be. If Wonder Woman likes girls, that is frankly none of my business until it impacts the story. When the villain attacks her family to get at her, with whom she sleeps becomes important. Otherwise, it is simple pandering to a specific segment of the audience.
So basically all relationships of a character, whether friendship straight or otherwise are to be kept as implications and innuendo unless absolutely necessary for the plot?
Sounds like a narrow world with no world building going on. Unless you're just playing the card where it's specifically g.ay romantic relationships you want kept as inferred whereas platonic and straight ones can be out in the open at all times are they are in close to 100% of all media.
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!
[sarcasm]Naturally, I stated it as an inalterable absolute. One should always assume any statement made should apply in every case, especially when it clearly does not.[/sarcasm]
My definition and yours of what is absolutely necessary for a story are quite obviously different, and were you and I to write the exact same story, (say we both witnessed an auto accident and were writing about it,) we would emphasize completely different details. It is for the writer to decide what to include in his work. I stated my on opinion what I want to read, not an authoritarian discourse on what I will allow in fiction writing.
In my given example, had Mark Twain written about Tom and Becky's relationship without making it an important plot point I would have the same issue: irrelavent, distracting, and pandering. It has nothing to do with social bias and everything to do with creating the kind of fiction I enjoy reading.
Your final sentence displays your bias far more clearly than it does mine. I chose the Huck/Becky contrast as an example with which the majority of readers of English will be familiar, not as an example of which kinds of relationships should be allowed, and I then said,
You are entitled to your views, whatever they may be. You are not entitled to re-write my views so you can then denegrate me based on what you wrote.
Look at Superman for the longest time - did he "love" Lois, or was it a "game" or whatever?
I vaguely think it was the '80s, if not '90s, where Superman finally started "settling down" with Lois, even though it was then inferred that he "had a crush" on her the entire time and the usual "didn't want anyone to know because of how much trouble it would bring her yada yada..."
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?
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]
My character Tsin'xing
So Stateside, I look at it from a considerably different perspective from you Brits. I see it as Star Trek and other speculative fiction carrying on the tradition of directly challenging the "good old days". As the song says, "The good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems" (thank you, Billy).
It is a retelling of A New Hope, but not solely the final theatrical version: they took bits and pieces of several different development drafts of the script and threw them in a blender. E.g. one version had the female Skywalker or Starkiller twin be the main protagonist, from whence we get Rey. And the new X-Wings are taken directly from early concept art.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
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.
BTW, I've studied US Civil Rights for my. A-Level, and what I've seen with regards to affirmative action (the practice of giving preferential treatment to minorities, also known as 'positive discrimination'), that policy has only served to generate resentment and strengthen resistance to civil equality, not address it.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
And? You stated your opinion, that does not shield you from counter opinions or critique of said opinion.
You've specifically excluded one particular feature from all others as being superfluous to backstory for no real reason without also providing a counterpoint, such as deciding all romantic relationships are unworthy of backstory or world building.
With no reason for that it's left as a highly selective exclusion.
And? What does that have to do with Wonder Woman or Star Trek? You've quoted an example of, not something you like in the circumstances it exists, but as a standard.
Characters require depth and motivation, they require personality and most of all, relationships to other characters. Writers are never told to only leave to inference relationships to other characters unless there is a plot related reveal (Vader is Luke's father BTW) except in the case of g.ay characters.
I'm specifically using ST as an example for the reason we're on a ST forum, so how was the enormous plot diversion that Chekov was straight (when the alien woman kicked him out of her quarters) for you? Too on the nose? Pushing an agenda?
I've not rewrite any of your views. There is no strawmanning going on, only a summary.
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.
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!
This statement is factually incorrect. You said,
I said,
The observant will recognize that the two statements are not different ways of saying the same thing. You have rewritten what I said so that you could then denigrate me for something I do not and have never believed. The proof of this is when you then infer that I specifically have an agenda regarding what kind of sex is acceptable in fiction, even though I explicitly stated in my post, which directly contradicts your later assertion that I wanted a particular brand of romance to remain in the dark. It is clear that you either failed to actually read my post before replying to it, or that you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said for your own purposes.
Word building can help characterization and advance the plot, but does not always do so. An extreme example of this can be found in Gormengast, in which nothing much happens in one of the most fantastic worlds ever created in fiction. (If you can find a copy, do read it.) So the real question here is, does the information advance the story through plot or characterization? (Note that characterization of the world, or 'world building,' is still characterization.) If it is only included for the sake of 'inclusiveness,' then it is a divergence from the point of the story, and ultimately only distracts from the story. Such inclusions are nothing more than pandering to a specific audience by the author. It may make the author feel enlightened and readers of that particular bent might think it shows open-mindedness, but it is actually a lowest common denominator gimmick.
If you want to read or write stories which include people of whatever kind you like, go right ahead. I am not anti- anyone. If you want to ship your favorite characters you are likewise free to do so. You are not entitled to re-write the opinions of others to make them appear to be bigots simply because they do not blindly conform to your world view.
My character Tsin'xing
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]