MovieChat Forums > Thespear > Replies
Thespear's Replies
"A little learning is a dangerous thing...drink deep or taste not of the Pierian spring..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction
Cheers!
If anyone feels Biden's son's job smacks of 'nepotism' and yet they can't see that Trump is mortgaging the country to the highest bidder for his own personal benefit, they are dishonest or stupid or both.
I want to ask the Trump supporters the following question: Do you think the Chinese leader or any other world leader is busy wrecking the foundations of their country; sowing divisions in their people through racist hateful dialogue; inviting foreigners to interfere into their politics; ONLY to survive and make money?
I ask this because AFTER this nightmare is over, however it is over, we will still need to gather with our allies to confront the very real threats of Russian, China, Terrorism and Global Climate change etc. I only hope that by that time it will not be too late!
Your definition of 'unnatural' is flexible, moving and therefore not scientific!
Anyone who can see that Biden's son's appointment might be a result of nepotism but can not see that Trump has put the country up sale for his own personal, political reasons is dishonest!
So BillySlater, something is 'unnatural' when it does not lead to possible procreation? That would make infertile people unnatural. That would make ANYTHING you do to conceive ( outside of straight penal/vaginal intercourse) 'unnatural' Perhaps you believe the sex act is ONLY for procreation, which would make any other type of reproduction 'unnatural'.
"Actually we can factually prove it isn’t part of the “plan” whatever that is."
Waiting for your " factual proof" Mr Universe
Calling homosexuality a 'glitch' is sort of like calling a hurricane or earthquake or Siamese twins 'bad' or 'evil'. It might help to describe our human experience of the catastrophe or unusual occurrence but it has no meaning beyond that. All things in nature are intrinsically neither good nor bad. It might be better to say, this hurricane caused massive disruption for mankind; or the earthquake killed thousands or being born a Siamese twin is an unbearable burden; or being born homosexual will make your life harder in most countries today.
The value judgement that words like 'glitch' or 'unnatural' or 'anomalies' suggests implies you have the secret formula that governs the universe, and that homosexuality isn't part of the plan. I don't think any of us are even close to being that knowledgeable...yet
"This universe is under no obligation to explain itself to ...you" Neil deGrass Tyson
Whew! you have some serious issues dude! Clearly you don't understand what oppression is; what feminism is; what equality is; what intellectualism means; how Trump got elected; or what it might be like to be discriminated against or degraded at work ( ask your wife she might be able to clue you in).
From the ridiculous assertions in your earlier posts, I could tell you did not read widely or get your information from a variety of useful sources. It's a shame for your sake that the Right has abandoned thoughtful writers the likes of William F Buckley and George Will, erudite people who were able to argue the conservative case <b> intelligently based on reason and facts</b>.
Now all you have to listen to and learn from are a series of blowhards on the right for whom facts can be "alternative"; for whom there is no more any DECENCY or MORALITY; and who worship one man with slavish fidelity that is sickening. This is why you can come to the following ridiculous conclusion: <i>"You want more women and minorities on the big screen, go put them there and stop whining it's someone else's job."</i>
I don't know ANYBODY asking anyone else to put 'more women and minorities' anywhere. NEWSFLASH, there are thousands of people (like your wife) striving against ALL THE ODDS to get where they want. I am simply asking YOU GUYS to stop criticizing them where you would not criticize anyone else. You start doing that by acknowledging the sexism and racism that was a feature of the past for what it is. You would accept that, for all it's greatness, Star Trek in MOST of it's previous incarnations has presented a world where women and minorities (racial and sexual orientation wise) were not given the profile that they got for the first time in DSC.
This is the stupid notion YOU put on the table here:
<b>"Where is your righteous anger that Chinese cinema is predominately Chinese? Bollywood is predominately Indian? You have been told it is the job of white men to put women and other cultures ahead of themselves or they are sexist or racist, that's absurd."</b>
My answer to you is that these people have a qualitatively different history to the 'white man' which accounts for their more homogeneous cinema. Your have tried to defend the behavior of 'white men' in history with weaker and weaker DISHONEST arguments, your latest being that the 'overwhelming majority' of native Americans would have died from 'old world diseases'. Really? Is this what you need to tell yourself to avoid admitting to historical FACTS!?!?
Talk about being wrong, talk about bad analogies. You want to pretend that cinema doesn't have a cultural and historical context therefore American cinema should equal Chinese or Indian cinema. Your "they did it too" argument falls flat because, they DIDN'T DO IT TOO! You should find some other INTELLIGENT argument why American cinema should feature ONLY ONE segment of the population but the fact is you can't because there isn't one, aside from the obvious.
Stating historical facts is NOT A serious answer? because YOU say so?. So your defense against a murder charge is that someone else would have murdered your victim? Or that murders occur all the time? Or that someone else had murdered your Uncle?I don't think so! Don't be stupid! You wanted to know why YOU couldn't act like others whose cinema is more homogenous. You assumed were talking to someone like yourself who is ignorant about the globe.
THAT is your answer. You can't eat your cake and have it! You have to live with the consequences of your adventurism!!!
McQualude,
Clearly YOU are the one that needs the history lesson. The Indians, Chinese and Nigerians never left their homelands to abduct and/or conquer other lands and people and create new societies in which they now pretend that ONLY Indians, Chinese and Nigerians are the ones capable of HEROISM. Those are the FACTS!
Don't imagine what I base my conclusions on....you could have asked me...but I will tell you anyway!
<b>"White males built modern cinema, and now they must say 'thanks' because others don't complain about it?</B>"
That statement is dripping with conceit and misplaced indignation. You are saying " How dare anyone else complain about WM dominating all starring roles! They created cinema!" Talk about fallacy, I simply stated the FACT that WM domination in Western Cinema has NEVER been met with ANY complaint, even when white actors play none white historical figures. Conversely, however, now that some other none traditional western characters" are getting A SHARE of the limelight, all hell has broken loose. Suddenly the concept of Mary Sue is created; Burnham is all powerful; fights everyone; too capable to be realistic!
Notice that I used the term 'none traditional western' characters because the history of mankind is such that Europe or Western societies never maintained the homogeneous character that some other regions of the globe have. That too is a direct result of WM actions.
In other words, if you were so concerned about sharing 'starring roles' in the cinema that you say YOU created, perhaps you should have <b>stayed in Europe!</b> That way you could now follow the example of Bollywood or Nollywood or Chinese Cinema...without a peep from anyone!
You really ought to read more about the comprehensive history of 'white males and the globe' before you make such presumptuous statements. For the sake of today argument, I'll assume you are correct. Are you then saying therefore ALL starring roles HAVE to be given to white males? If the cinema had been developed in Egypt then Egyptians should have all the starring roles? See how ridiculous that sounds?
Thankfully technology is now democratizing the world. Vast populations of the globe no longer have to be subjugated to ONE narrow point of view. Indeed, the world in now seeing itself more clearly. Unfortunately for you, the model of production which Hollywood has chosen relies heavily on those consuming the product, not their ancestors. These consumers are now the entire world!
It's a shame that some fans seem to bend themselves into pretzels to 'justify' CLEAR evidence of sexism in TOS. That is almost like saying there was and is no sexism in the entire human experience. One person said Uhuru was in TOS because she was 'good at her job' when there is ZERO evidence of that. Miniskirts were a fashion statement, even though it was not so in the original pilot! A person does NOT have to be right wing, white, male or a Nazi to see when women are relegated to subservient roles. Yes, Picard was not as chauvinistic as Kirk but I think Mulgrew's comment was directed at Roddenberry's ST not Roddenberry himself. Yes, it was a sign of the times BUT the times were really crappy for women and minorities.
It is amazing that these fans now attack ANY attempt to show a different side of humanity as SJW or 'political correctness'. The world is majority female and majority none white. The vast majority of tv and movies have had white male protagonists heroes for the LONGEST time with no complaints. Yet, any attempt to show women or minorities in the SAME heroic roles is greeted with hysteria! Someone is trying to shove something down their collective throats! Michelle Yeoh looks 'too old', yet we can accept a positively geriatric looking Picard and Data!, Sonequa's Burnham is too accomplished ( a Mary Sue) yet we can accept a pot bellied Roger Moore as super-spy James Bond! We simply MUST have a Pike/Spock spin off but DSC is not in the right time; too futuristic; defeats canon but please , please give us Pike and Spock!
In truth ST has changed. The series has attempted to show a greater variety of the human experience. The producers realize that as mankind advances our notions of our place in the world; our relationship with each other, our planet, and the species we share it with IS ALSO CHANGING. By the time depicted in ST our notions of human sexuality, will have changed too. Sadly, some ST fans will never GET THIS!
I'll have to watch it again but I believe the guard had a radio which June forced him to radio in that there was "no problem"BEFORE SHE KILLED HIM!!!. June knew he would not expect her to have a gun so taking him AWAY from the kids makes sense completely.
One thing I give THT top marks for is its very realistic portrayal of <b>human cruelty</b>. I read where the producers confirmed that EVERYTHING depicted in THT HAS happened in real life. I have read a few commentators expressing incredulity that such a society could form or be sustained in the US today and I wonder: was the 2nd world war that far away? Do these people have any idea how people are currently oppressed in the world today? I think these people are either in denial or dangerously naive and complacent.
June ran into the woods to draw the guard away so that the kids could escape. After episode 6, June has become single minded in her desire to free as many children as possible...now that she has little hope of getting to her own daughter. She is less concerned with her own survival.
Season 4 will explain how they survive. Perhaps with the news of the children escaping more Marthas and Soldiers will be inspired to be supportive of a rebellion to overthrow or resist the Gilead military structure. This has happened before in history.
Besides there are plenty of suggestions in the show that MANY people are not necessarily TRUE believers. It seems likely that there are many underground sources for 'entertainment'. Just like currently in Saudi there are frequent underground parties with alcohol, drugs and western music etc.
THIS VERY argument is EXACTLY why a society like Gilead is VERY possible today People will find every argument to support their political viewpoint or individual advantage. There are many examples of Gilead like human societies that have flourished in current times Saudia Arabia is just ONE example, but there are others!
What people need to understand is that it ONLY takes the SILENCE of the majority for a minority to make the most OUTRAGEOUS things possible. If you asked Commander Lawrence, an architect of Gilead, he will explain that, because of the fertility decrease, he was only trying to save humanity; if you asked Aunt Lydia, she will say, under the circumstances, she is only trying to save as many maidens as possible; if you ask Serena Waterford, she will explain she is only desperately trying to get a child. The Marthas and Soldiers of Gilead will say tell you they are simply putting food on the table or trying to survive. None of these people will admit to being FULLY FLEDGED supporters of the Gilead philosophy, yet there they are upholding the system and benefiting from it.
How many of today's population are turning a blind eye to CLEAR police executions; unjust imprisonment of INNOCENT children; blatant racism and xenophobia because they support a particular political direction or because they feel THEIR OWN individual interests are protected? I agree with the author ALL of what she has included in the book is based on things that HAVE ALREADY OCCURRED! in humanity. Some might say we are currently living in Gilead yet we don't even know it
"In short DS9 looked the MOST like humanity than any ST to date and is therefore my favorite ST."
" DSC is trying to show us more REALISTIC humans and aliens"
Learn how to READ!
Actually I see a very clear PROGRESSION in the ST series, each reflecting its time: TOS was groundbreaking with the idea that a 'cold war world' could come together and even work with other species for the good of the universe. It was however VERY flat, restrictive and had an exaggerated idea of man's place in said universe. In TNG the Captaincy was replaced by a more thoughtful, reflexive human who questioned 'orders' and mankind's place as only ONE in a group of good doing species was introduced. The characters in TNG were also just as FLAT as their TOS counterparts. In VOY, ST began to give depth and growth to SOME of the characters. Ironically, the greatest growth was demonstrated by least 'human' character: The Doctor; 7 of 9; Kes. The presence of the Maquis presented the show with an excellent opportunity to give ST a dimension it had lacked before this. Some attempt was made to exploit this but timidity caused the writers to make the show's heroine, Captain Janeway, a far less impressive character than Mulgrew's acting COULD have presented. Captain Janeway never really grew even though she had the kind of experiences that could have allowed her to. We see the same Captain who started her misgiving mission. In DS9 for the first time in ST we saw a Captain, who was not only more human but who also changed with grew BECAUSE his circumstances and experiences. Sisko started not wanting the job; not liking the stations inhabitants; not wishing to form alliances; not believing in Bajoran religion and ended up putting a fantastic alliance together with former enemies, fiercely defending the station and its inhabitants, becoming a favorite of all the stations inhabitants and even becoming a Bajoran deity. There was also a plethora of other species with other interests to consider. In short DS9 looked the MOST like humanity than any ST to date and is therefore my favorite ST. DSC is trying to show us more REALISTIC humans and aliens