CANCELLED
Never saw it, but it's a Primevideo original so it must be woke cringe.
https://deadline.com/2023/08/the-peripheral-canceled-unrenewed-season-2-strikes-amazon-1235454772/
"WOKE CRINGE"...THAT IS SO AWKWARD.
share
MovieChat Forums > The Peripheral (2022) Discussion > CANCELLED
It certainly had some woke elements that hurt it, that removing, or reversing would have helped.
For example, the main character, Grace Moretz, was some minor celebrity because she was such as a kick ass gamer, better than her brother.
It was a stupid girl boss moment, and certainly toke me out of the story, reminding me that there were idiot leftard hollywood writers behind the whole plot.
Losing that, would have been a plus.
Kick ass gamer… was that deliberate?
shareWhat "woke moments" exactly did it have?
>For example, the main character, Grace Moretz, was some minor celebrity because she was such as a kick ass gamer, better than her brother.
This is a truly pathetic analysis. So the fact that a woman is presented as a highly successful e-gamer, better than her brother is in itself woke?
I am surprised you're not crying about the trans-actor.
Yes. The need to constantly have women be better than men, at everything, is an element of wokeness.
That was the point I made. Your response attacked me, but did not address the point.
1. Did it serve any purpose in the plot?
2. Did it break immersion in the story?
3. Did it not insult male viewers, which is going to be needed for the show to succeed?
Where does the show do that? She's better than her brother at video games. So fucking what? Also she games *in his name*, if I recall. He's a bigger celebrity internationally than her.
1. It was the reason for why she went into the Peripheral (under his avatar) instead of him. It's the reason she's the lead of the show, and in that futuristic london - and not Burton.
2. No. Why the fuck would it?
3. You're insulted by a woman being portrayed at better than something than a man? You really are a little misogynistic baby.
And again, I'm surprised you aren't throwing the table over Ainsley Lowbeer being trans.
1. The need for women to always be better them the men, is wokeness.
2. Yes, because "sexism". Thus more male bashing.
3. No reason they couldn't have just been both gamers and he needed another player for a certain game or mission. But that wouldn't be woke.
4. Becasue the military vet brother wouldnt' be whining about sexism in gaming. That was the hollywood writers peeking though hte character. That reminded me that it was a script written by hollywood woke lefties.
5. And again, you refuse to address what my acutal point. It is not that a woman is shown as better. It is that women are constantly and almost universially shown as better than men.
6. I clearly stated that there were multiple elements of wokenss and that I was giving ONE.
1. And how does the show do that? Because she's better than Burton at video games?
2. So the reason that Flynne is the lead, and not Burton is in itself sexist? Is that what you're arguing? Would you have a problem if the roles were swapped and Burton was the better gamer using Flynn's avatar?
Also your alternative explanation for how it could have been written makes no sense because Burton wanted her to go into the Peripheral (without knowing what it was) because of her talents. They headhunted who they thought was Burton because of her using his avatar.
3. See above.
4. He did whine about that? I don't recall.
5. You are literally complaining about the fact that a woman is depicted as being a better gamer than a man. That's literally it. One woman, better than one man. It's pathetic. And when on earth does the show universally say that women are better than men?
6. So a transperson being cast in anything is woke?
1. They state that she is better.
2. They stated that the reason she was gaming under his name was to avoid sexism. That is more male bashing.
3. They couldn't have headhunted them both? They couldn't have head hunted on of them? What purposed did the sharing of avatar fill?
4. He mentioned it. A backwoods southern military vet brother, is really talking to his sister about the sexism she faces? LOL. nope. That is the hollywood writer peeking though.
5. Thee show doesn't SAY it, it is part of SHOWING it.
6. Let's keep this to one example. Libs like to have discussiong grow so that they can jump around a lot and confuse the issue, because on some level they know the shit theey say makes no sense.
1. At video games? So?
2. This is literally a phenomenon that exists in real life. And I'll ask again: Would you have a problem if the roles were swapped and Burton was the better gamer using Flynn's avatar? Or if just Burton was the better gamer and used his own avatar?
Would you have a problem if Flynn was the better gamer, but used her own avatar?
3. The show has already explained. And again, your solution here is to literally not make Flynn the lead character.
4. Yes. Why wouldn't he? Or why couldn't he?
5. They show *one instance* where she's better at one thing than one man. How else do they "show it"?
6. No. I am quite happy to juggle two examples here, and I won't take lectures about the shotgun argument from you. Do you think a transperson being cast in a setting makes it immediately "woke"?
1. It is a woke element that the woman always has to be better.
2. Lots of shit exist in real life. The question is, why was it put into the story. Was it to advance the plot or to inject "the message" into the movie, becauase wokeness.
3. The explanation served no story purpose. But it did let the writers inject how males are sexist into the show.
4. Because he is a man, not a hollywood lefty.
5. Wokeness is a general trend of male bashing and girl power. This is one example in this movie.
6. Good for you. I listed one example. You are already having trouble following the discussion as is, and you want to drag in more examples. Typical lefty games.
1. In literally one thing. When did the TV show say that women are better at everything?
2. Because fiction is a MIRROR of real life. What people experience goes into how stories are made. And I'll ask again: Would you have a problem if the roles were swapped and Burton was the better gamer using Flynn's avatar? Or if just Burton was the better gamer and used his own avatar?
Would you have a problem if Flynn was the better gamer, but used her own avatar?
3. I disagree. It's why she was sent into the world to become the avatar.
4. You are stereotyping based on your own prejudice. He's his own person, and if he and his sister are avid gamers, he 100% would've observed sexism.
5. Not answering my question. How did the show "male bash"? What "girl power"? By just saying Flynn is a brilliant gamer?
6. You shotgun argument all the time. I'm quite capable of asking this and dealing with your obvious misogyny on this otherwise. Do you think a transperson being cast in a setting makes it immediately "woke"?
1. It is one thing here. It is another thing in the last woke movie. It was something else in the woke tv show before that. Then it was still another thing in the woke show before that one.
Your refusal to even understand my point, is making this whole thread pointless.
1. Again. When did Peripheral say, at all, that women are better at everything? One woman being a world-class gamer is not the same thing as saying that "women are better at anything".
Would it be acceptable if Burton was the "world-class gamer"? Would that be like saying men are better at everything?
Skavau. You are just being dense here.
In THIS show, they are gaming. Thus the female had to be better.
And when all the shows break teh same way, then YES, woke shows are saying that "women are better at anything".
This is a simple concept. It is hard to credit that it is beyond you.
If you can't understand this, then there is nothing to discuss. Your mind is then too closed to even talk to you. You are like a rock, not a person.
>In THIS show, they are gaming. Thus the female had to be better.
They wrote her as being better. So?
>And when all the shows break teh same way, then YES, woke shows are saying that "women are better at anything".
I await evidence that "all the shows break the same way".
>If you can't understand this, then there is nothing to discuss. Your mind is then too closed to even talk to you. You are like a rock, not a person.
I'll ask again: Would it be acceptable if Burton was the "world-class gamer"? Would that be like saying men are better at everything?
1. So it conforms to wokeness.
2. Sorry. Not interested in playing troll boi games.
3. Yes, it would be acceptable. And no, it would not be saying that, because it would not be part of a widespread and boring political movement.
1. No reason to believe that a woman being said or shown to better at an activity is woke. You're just showing how much of a misogynist you are.
2. So you have no evidence. I already know you're ignorant as fuck about modern TV so this doesn't surprise me that you can't back it up.
3. You just admitted that it would be acceptable if Burton was written as the world-class gamer, and not Flynn. Because you're a misogynistic hypocrite.
And a sad little prudish snowflake about fiction.
1. You are playing dumb, ignoring the trend.
2. Your silly game is noted and dismissed. Not sure what you get out of this discussion if you are not going to actually engage.
3. I "admitted it" and explained why. Your counter to my explanation was to call me sexist. That is you losing the debate. Thanks for playing.
4. I am a sci fi fan. Yes, it makes me sad when lefties like you inject their shit politics into sci fi and ruins it. Perhaps if the writers had spent less time pumping their politics into the show, they could have made it a bit better and it might have survived.
1. You haven't demonstrated such a trend exists. What you insist without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
2. I am engaging. I am asking you to back your claims up. I'm not bound to just accept your claims just because you say them. I continue to know you're fanastically ignorant about modern TV.
3. Your explanation was an excuse rooted in a false premise, covering your blatant misogyny. You have double standards. Your head is so infested by Woke-fear Derangement Syndrome that you literally perceive every instance where a woman is said to be better at something as politivally motivated.
4. You think that she is a world-class gamer somehow "ruins" the plot? That's it? You do realise that this is LITERALLY FROM THE SOURCE MATERIAL, right? She was the lead. I always thought you guys thought source material was sacrosanct.
And the show died due to the writers strike. It was originally renewed. Had nothing to do with "wokeness".
3. My explanation stands. You calling me a name is not a challenge.
You explanation does not stand. At best, it's due to paranoia and obsession about 'wokism' that has given you brainworms meaning you think that if a woman in a setting is ever presented as better than a man at anything, you think it's for nefarious reasons. At worst, you're just a flaming misogynist.
I said many other things there that you didn't answer.
I'll help you answer a question by the way. Here's some sci-fi shows I've watched: Dark, The Expanse, Severance, Altered Carbon, See, Silo, The 100, The Lazarus Project, Night Sky, 1899, 3%, Snowpiercer, Foundation, Tales from the Loop, Station Eleven, Hello Tomorrow. Where did they say that women are better than men?
The rest of what you said was just... not worthy of reply.
My explanation stands. Your calling me a name INSTEAD of challenging it, is an admission by you that you cannot challenge it.
THus my point is the end of hte converstation. More discussion is pointless. We reached the end of the discussion with my answer.
>THus my point is the end of hte converstation. More discussion is pointless. We reached the end of the discussion with my answer.
You claimed that all shows "break the same way". I'll try again:
I'll help you answer a question by the way. Here's some sci-fi shows I've watched: Dark, The Expanse, Severance, Altered Carbon, See, Silo, The 100, The Lazarus Project, Night Sky, 1899, 3%, Snowpiercer, Foundation, Tales from the Loop, Station Eleven, Hello Tomorrow. Where did they say that women are better than men?
Your refusal to engage is noted.
So... why did you bother to post?
>My explanation stands. Your calling me a name INSTEAD of challenging it, is an admission by you that you cannot challenge it.
What is there to "challenge"? You hold different standards. You believe it is acceptable for writers to depict a man as being better than a woman and not the other way around purely because you think a woman being portrayed as better at something than a man is due to 'wokeness'. It's literally woke paranoia syndrome. You're assuming the writers motives. Or you're just a sexist.
>THus my point is the end of hte converstation. More discussion is pointless. We reached the end of the discussion with my answer.
You claimed that all shows "break the same way". I'll try again:
I'll help you answer a question by the way. Here's some sci-fi shows I've watched: Dark, The Expanse, Severance, Altered Carbon, See, Silo, The 100, The Lazarus Project, Night Sky, 1899, 3%, Snowpiercer, Foundation, Tales from the Loop, Station Eleven, Hello Tomorrow. Where did they say that women are better than men?
That was not my explanation. That you refuse to address what I said honestly, is your brain protecting you from information that hurts you.
Change is hard. But if you open yourself to new information, youe change can be GROWTH.
i'm not sure why you are committed to your current world view. But giving it up, will allow you to be more honest with yourself and the world.
HOnesty requires bravery. If you fail, you will know that about yourself, even if you pretend you don't.
>That was not my explanation. That you refuse to address what I said honestly, is your brain protecting you from information that hurts you.
I asked if it would've been acceptable if Burton was written to be the better gamer, and you said yes that would be fine. Yet the opposite would not be because of assumptions about motives of the writers - that is to say you assume that any and all instances of a woman being written as better than a man are not motivated by anything other than "wokeness". It is rank hypocrisy no matter what excuses you provide.
>i'm not sure why you are committed to your current world view. But giving it up, will allow you to be more honest with yourself and the world.
You know nothing about my worldview. And I am not going to lectured by a manchild who cries whenever media represents the USA negatively in any sense.
I'll help you answer a question by the way. Here's some sci-fi shows I've watched: Dark, The Expanse, Severance, Altered Carbon, See, Silo, The 100, The Lazarus Project, Night Sky, 1899, 3%, Snowpiercer, Foundation, Tales from the Loop, Station Eleven, Hello Tomorrow. Where did they say that women are better than men?
And also, I haven't forgotten - Is it inherently woke when a transperson is cast in a role?
My explanation was not based on assumptionsa bout their motives but on the existance of the trend.
It is worth nothing that when pushed, you were able to go back and reread my post and at least get closer to my actual explanation.
>My explanation was not based on assumptionsa bout their motives but on the existance of the trend.
A trend you have failed to evidence. I've asked you for examples, and given you some aides. And indeed, even if there was a trend - it would not mean every single instance of a woman being written as better than a man would have anything to do with it. Writing teams operate independently. But you literally think that no media should write a woman being better than at a man at anything.
I'll help you answer a question by the way. Here's some sci-fi shows I've watched: Dark, The Expanse, Severance, Altered Carbon, See, Silo, The 100, The Lazarus Project, Night Sky, 1899, 3%, Snowpiercer, Foundation, Tales from the Loop, Station Eleven, Hello Tomorrow. Where did they say that women are better than men?
>It is worth nothing that when pushed, you were able to go back and reread my post and at least get closer to my actual explanation.
No, there was a typing fault with my prior response. If you put " > < " rather than ">" it hides the response. It hid part of my response to you. I realised this when you said I didn't address it. I've addressed it repeatedly.
Writing teams operate independently, but not in isolation.
If you were on a writing team during a period of say.... rampant anti-black racism,
would you write a... random rapist character as a black guy, thus giving at least the APPEARENCE of agreeing with and supporting the TREND of anti-black racism, or would you try to avoid that?
>Writing teams operate independently, but not in isolation.
I await evidence of some kind of collusion or conspiracy of 'woke writing'.
>would you write a... random rapist character as a black guy, thus giving at least the APPEARENCE of agreeing with and supporting the TREND of anti-black racism, or would you try to avoid that?
Are you genuinely arguing that the character of Flynn is remotely comparable to a black rapist character?
And by the way, does this mean since you presumably think that there's a wave of anti-white racism that white people should not be depicted as rapists?
Nothing about my question implied that Flynn was comparable to a black rapist character.
It was an asshole move to even ask that.
>Nothing about my question implied that Flynn was comparable to a black rapist character.
Dude, you literally bought up the analogy as an example.
You seem to think Flynn represents a "female supremacist" character in an age where misandry is supposedly rampant.
And by the way, does this mean since you presumably think that there's a wave of anti-white racism that white people should not be depicted as rapists?
It's of note by the way that the main villain of The Peripheral is a black woman. A detail.
My analogy was about the writing team(s).
You did not answer. You still have not answered.
And it was still an asshole move on your part.
>My analogy was about the writing team(s).
You think the writing of Flynn is comparable to the writing of a black rapist?
>You did not answer. You still have not answered.
Answered what?
And you've ignored at least 4 of my questions now.
>And it was still an asshole move on your part.
You made the fucking analogy.
And by the way, does this mean since you presumably think that there's a wave of anti-white racism that white people should not be depicted as rapists?
It's of note by the way that the main villain of The Peripheral is a black woman. A detail.
My question was clear and simple.
Your delaying tactics are because you know that you would NOT joint the trend. While the writers of this show, DID join the trend.
Thus, your troll games, show that you know my point is ccorrect.
The Girl Boss nonsense was a woke element that distracted from the story and weakened the show.
>My question was clear and simple.
Yes, I think black people can be good and bad and it shouldn't matter what the social climate is.
Going to answer any of my questions?
>Your delaying tactics are because you know that you would NOT joint the trend. While the writers of this show, DID join the trend.
You haven't provided any evidence of this "trend", nor provided any evidence that "a woman being written as being better than a male" is part of that trend that you claim exists.
Have you considered that they have source materials, and Flynn being a great gamer is from there?
>The Girl Boss nonsense was a woke element that distracted from the story and weakened the show.
At no point is she depicted as a "girl boss" at all. I never ever got that vibe.
1. I don't believe you. I think you would NOT join in on a trend of punching down at black people in such a scenario.
2. I have no problem with her being a great gamer. That she HAS to be better than her brother is the issue. That you keep trying to twist my words, is your brain dealing with it knowing you are wrong.
3. AND other woke elements reflect back onto this example, reinforcing the idea that it is woke and not sincere.
Do you think a transperson being cast in a setting makes it immediately "woke"?
share1. This would be one of the many things you do not know about me, and have gotten wrong about me.
Now are you going to answer any of my other questions? Are you going to tell me how it is a trend that all other shows currently utilise, that right women as being "better than men"?
Here's some sci-fi shows I've watched: Dark, The Expanse, Severance, Altered Carbon, See, Silo, The 100, The Lazarus Project, Night Sky, 1899, 3%, Snowpiercer, Foundation, Tales from the Loop, Station Eleven, Hello Tomorrow. Where did they say that women are better than men?
2. But it is not an issue, as you've stated if her brother was written to be better than her at gaming. And as I've stated, have you considered that this might LITERALLY COME FROM THE SOURCE MATERIAL?
3. What "other woke elements"? That there is a transperson in it? You still haven't answered my question if whether or not you think a transperson in media is in itself, "woke".
1. A trend does not have to be 100% to be a trend. It is utterly absurd that you would try to pretend it does.
2. Correct, it would not be an issue if her brother was equal or better. As I have explained AND explained why.
3. I was thinking of the complaint of sexism. Sexism is very much an issue of the day, at least for the woke among us. That reflects back upon Her being the best and verifies the wokeness of that, as opposed to sincere story telling.
1. And I've given you many shows I've watched, mr "sci-fi" fan. Care to comment on them? Here's some sci-fi shows I've watched: Dark, The Expanse, Severance, Altered Carbon, See, Silo, The 100, The Lazarus Project, Night Sky, 1899, 3%, Snowpiercer, Foundation, Tales from the Loop, Station Eleven, Hello Tomorrow. Where did they say that women are better than men?
2. I asked if it would've been acceptable if Burton was written to be the better gamer, and you said yes that would be fine. Yet the opposite would not be because of assumptions about motives of the writers - that is to say you assume that any and all instances of a woman being written as better than a man are not motivated by anything other than "wokeness". It is rank hypocrisy no matter what excuses you provide. It's at best, a mind-virus bought on by your paranoia about "wokism" or utter unashamed sexism.
And you didn't answer a related question: And by the way, does this mean since you presumably think that there's a wave of anti-white racism that white people should not be depicted as rapists?
3. So a single throwaway line that has no meaning further down the plot. How else is the show "woke"?
1. Sorry, I've been watching less tv because of the declinging quality AND the impact of youtube shorts on my attention span. You need to find common examples for discussion.
2. Ignoring context is not reasonable. That would you would pretend it is, is absurb.
3. If it had no meaning to the plot, then why was it there?
1. So you're simply out of touch and as I said, know nothing about modern TV. And if you think Altered Carbon, The Expanse and Severance weren't big TV shows that illustrates it even more.
2. What context did I ignore? I noted the context you provided.
3. Does worldbuilding small details mean absolutely nothing to you? Such a binary view about fiction.
1. So, your scenario is that I am "out of touch" and am imagining the problem... That would imply then that I would be the only one, seeing this problem. Yet, that is very much not the case, sooooo........ that seems to not be the case. Try again.
2. LOL. NOt going to dignifiy that. Try again.
3. World building? That the sexism of the future is just like sexism preceived by lefites today? Wow, what great worldbuildoing, SOOO COOOL. not. LOL. Try again.
1. If you've not heard of The Expanse, Altered Carbon, Severance, Silo and Dark as a supposed sci-fi fan - then yes, you're out of touch. And mostly everyone else who cries about "wokeness" in my experience are also out of touch. You're in good company.
2. That's my answer.
3. It's set in the near-future, but also in terms of plot it provides a quick explanation for why she uses her brothers avatar. Nothing more. It's not that deep.
Now are you going to answer any of my other questions or am I just going to have to copy and paste them all to you in every single future reply?
1. I've certainly heard of them. Watched season one of altered carbon. But not recently enough that I feel comfortable discussing it.
2. Ok, so that's your final stonewall, ignore context.
3. That is your assumption, based on your desire to give them a pass.
4. Your questions are clearly designed to derail the thread, so that we can avoid clarity. We have found your final stonewall. This discussion has reached it' end.
1. That you've only *heard of them* doesn't provide great confidence either. They're huge shows for sci-fi. You are fundamentally out of touch.
2. You have not explained the context I have ignored. In fact, I literally responded to your, ahem, "reasoning" for why a male elite gamer is acceptable, but not a female elite gamer.
3. That is my answer, yes. It's not that deep. Why does it need to be given a "pass" at all? Should film and TV never ever mention, or bring up any instances (related to real life) of any kind of misogyny?
4. No, they're rooted from claims you've made or implications that come from your answers. They are also literally about the TV show. I am not dropping them. I will continue asking them.
(1) Given how you seem to view the world, it implies you personally think that external circumstances should influence writing. Now I know that you think that there's a wave of contemporary anti-white racism. So I'm asking you, based on the reasoning you're using for your anti-black example - does that mean you think that white people should not be depicted as rapists?
(2) Is it inherently "woke" is a transperson is cast in a role in a TV show?
1. Yet the issues I care about are constantly being discussed on this site...
2. Sure I did. YOur stonewalling is your final defense. This is where you cannot go any further without threatening your core beliefs.
3. Oh, you are "forgetting" why we were discussing this. It was to verify the wokeness of her being better than her brother. This is additional wokeness reflecting back, on that, verifying it's wokeness. That bit where you lose the thread of the discussion? Common lib defense mechanism.
4. But we have already found your final stonewall. THe most we could do would be to go back down a parallel path to reach the same point. That has no value.
1. This site is half populated by reactionary clowns who also have the modern media literacy of children. Moviechat is a small website with full of angry right-wing manchildren. They're also ignorant as fuck about modern TV and film and only watch the MCU.
2. How have I stonewalled? What context have I ignored? You just keep insisting this without providing any evidence.
3. How is it "woke" if a woman is written to be better at a single activity than a man?
4. Fuck off. Answer my questions.
(1) Given how you seem to view the world, it implies you personally think that external circumstances should influence writing. Now I know that you think that there's a wave of contemporary anti-white racism. So I'm asking you, based on the reasoning you're using for your anti-black example - does that mean you think that white people should not be depicted as rapists?
(2) Is it inherently "woke" is a transperson is cast in a role in a TV show?
Not answering anymore questions until you answer some of mine.
share1. So half the population of hte site is "out of touch"? LOL. And liberals still think that htey are the ones with an open mind.
2. Your demand for evidence that woke exists, is absurd. That I am still talking to you after that, is me being stupidly generous.
3. Not how. What. That is WHAT wokeness is, or at least a major pillar of it.
4. Fine with me. As I said, we found your limits.
1. Yes. Half of the population of this site is full of religious fascists.
2. I asked for evidence that the majority TV shows say that "women are better than men".
3. That is not answering my question: How is it "woke" if a woman is written to be better at a single activity than a man?
4. (1) Given how you seem to view the world, it implies you personally think that external circumstances should influence writing. Now I know that you think that there's a wave of contemporary anti-white racism. So I'm asking you, based on the reasoning you're using for your anti-black example - does that mean you think that white people should not be depicted as rapists?
(2) Is it inherently "woke" is a transperson is cast in a role in a TV show?
1. That statement is just dumb.
2. Correct. You asked me to provide evidence of a huge and well known movement. You might as well ask me for evidence of the Democrat Party. You are being absurd.
3. What. You are discussing WHAT woke is. And, tthat is you being silly. If you do not know what woke is at this point that would be willful ignorance on your part. It would be like me asking you what "Sexism"is. I would be pretending to be a retarded person to do that.
4. It is silly to think that external circumstances, or context do not influence the writing. Indeed, your position is growing increasingly absurd as you talk yourself into more and more absurd corners.
1. How so?
2. No, specifically, I asked you to specifically state where TV shows have literally and specifically directly stated that women are better than men because THAT is what you said is happening in nearly all modern TV shows.
3. I didn't ask you what "woke" is. I asked you how is it "woke" if a woman is written to be better at a single activity than a man?
I don't assume it's reactionary, or misogynistic if a man is written as better at a woman at something.
I'll continue to ask:
4. (1) Given how you seem to view the world, it implies you personally think that external circumstances should influence writing. Now I know that you think that there's a wave of contemporary anti-white racism. So I'm asking you, based on the reasoning you're using for your anti-black example - does that mean you think that white people should not be depicted as rapists?
(2) Is it inherently "woke" is a transperson is cast in a role in a TV show?
1. Half the population is HALF THE POPULATION. Who are you sitting in your half of the population to declare THEM to be the marginalized?
2. Correct. I won't play your silly troll game of being that unaware. Try again.
3. I understand. You have lost the debate and now want to retreat to a discussion of semantics.
4. I understand. You have lost the debatee and now want to try to ask me "questions" with the sole intent of creating the perception that I am some form of ist or phobe so that I can be "marginalized" and thus you can dismiss my arguments. This is a very common tactic with liberals who lose to arguments from conservatives.
1. What are you talking about? I'm talking about the demographics of moviechat. This is a site populated heavily by far-right loons and nutters likely banned from mostly all other social media.
2. You haven't provided any evidence because you're literally just talking abject horseshit.
3. I have directly responded to your, ahem, "reasoning" for why you think its okay to write a man as being better than a woman at something, but not a woman being better than a man.
4. (1) Given how you seem to view the world, it implies you personally think that external circumstances should influence writing. Now I know that you think that there's a wave of contemporary anti-white racism. So I'm asking you, based on the reasoning you're using for your anti-black example - does that mean you think that white people should not be depicted as rapists?
I will keep asking.
1. Sure. This site, just loons. The fact that the disnesy ceo admitted it, and that they need to change, means nothing. He is just a loon too. LOL.
2. Woke is not something I made up. It is pathetic for you to pretend it is.
3. I'm not interested in your silly games. Either response seriously or not at all.
4. I understand. You have lost the debatee and now want to try to ask me "questions" with the sole intent of creating the perception that I am some form of ist or phobe so that I can be "marginalized" and thus you can dismiss my arguments. This is a very common tactic with liberals who lose to arguments from conservatives.
1. Whatever the Disney CEO "admits" or doesn't admit has nothing to do with the fact that moviechat is full of loons.
2. I didn't say it was. I asked you for evidence that most shows directly state that women are better than men.
3. I have directly responded to your, ahem, "reasoning" for why you think its okay to write a man as being better than a woman at something, but not a woman being better than a man.
4. (1) Given how you seem to view the world, it implies you personally think that external circumstances should influence writing. Now I know that you think that there's a wave of contemporary anti-white racism. So I'm asking you, based on the reasoning you're using for your anti-black example - does that mean you think that white people should not be depicted as rapists?
I will keep asking.
1. It demolishes your pretense that our concerns are the concerns of "loons" instead of something real.
2. Whatever. You clearly are being evasive and I have no patience for such nonsense.
3. Your spin is noted. Otherwise, don't care.
4. I understand. Since you have lost the debate, you are trying to define me as ist or phobe so that you have an excuse to dismiss my arguments. Since you lost to my arguments.
This bores me.
I am more interested in what you think your reason(s) were for repeatedly lying about my position.
Why do you think you did that? Can you not see that that means that you KNOW that I am right and that you are wrong?
1. I didn't say your concerns about Disney were looney. I just said watch better shit and stop caring so much about superhero fiction that's always been for kids and teenagers.
2. I will ask again for evidence that most shows directly state that women are better than men.
3. I have directly responded to your, ahem, "reasoning" for why you think its okay to write a man as being better than a woman at something, but not a woman being better than a man.
4. Given how you seem to view the world, it implies you personally think that external circumstances should influence writing. Now I know that you think that there's a wave of contemporary anti-white racism. So I'm asking you, based on the reasoning you're using for your anti-black example - does that mean you think that white people should not be depicted as rapists?
(2) Is it inherently "woke" is a transperson is cast in a role in a TV show?
Not answering anything until you answer.
1. The only reason those I.P.s have value is because of people like me, adults who maintain an emotional investment in them. My interest is valid and my complaints legit.
2/3. This is more a converstation you should be having with your own brain. It is clear that your brain knows that I am right. Every time you lied about my position that was your brain dealing with the fact that it agrees with me on the facts, and trying to defend your emotional committment to a position it knows is wrong.
4. I understand. Since you have lost the debate, you are trying to define me as ist or phobe so that you have an excuse to dismiss my arguments. Since you lost to my arguments.
This bores me.
I am more interested in what you think your reason(s) were for repeatedly lying about my position.
Why do you think you did that? Can you not see that that means that you KNOW that I am right and that you are wrong?
1. And I have no idea why you care so deeply.
2. No such thing is true. I have watched a lot more modern TV than you. I am much more familiar with contemporary tropes. The Peripheral itself does not say "women are better than men". It says "*a* woman is better than *a* man at this particular task".
3. I have directly responded to your, ahem, "reasoning" for why you think its okay to write a man as being better than a woman at something, but not a woman being better than a man.
4. I haven't lied about your position. Can you outline the supposed lie?
1. Said the man that has spent WEEKS fighting about this. LOL.
2. You lied repeatedly about my positon. Every time you did that, taht was you admitting that your brain knows I am right. Think it though. Why did your brain lie?
4. Sure you did. I pointed it out each time. For you to deny it now is troll boi level stonewalling.
1. I mean, I saw Peripheral pop up on the site and saw a thread complaining about it being "woke".
2. You still haven't explained what I have lied about. What have I lied about?
4. No, you have not pointed it out at any point.
1. And spent weeks arguing about it. Why you care so much? LOL.
2. Dude. Don;t be an ass.
3. Dude. Don't be an ass.
1. This chain hasn't been going for weeks.
2. You still haven't explained what I have lied about. What have I lied about?
4. No, you have not pointed it out at any point.
No, you have not pointed them out. All you've done is reference them.
shareA recurring one is the way that you continually misrepresent what my position is.
Are you seriously pretending that I have not pointed that you to you before, or are you going to have a brain glitch when you read this and then reboot like an atari 400?
And what positions have I misrepresented?
shareAND AGAIN,
Being against woke writing where a man is not allowed to be depicted as bettern than a woman,
does not mean that I am against a woman every being depicted as better than a man.
What i want is a world where the story organically has various characters being better or worse regardless of sex or race.
For example is was pathetic that Shuri in black panther was presented as being smarter than Tony Stark and Bruce Banner.
>Being against woke writing where a man is not allowed to be depicted as bettern than a woman,
No reason to believe this is some "rule".
>What i want is a world where the story organically has various characters being better or worse regardless of sex or race.
Peripheral has this. Flynn was fairly useless in the real world where Burton and his friends had to protect her from the mercs sicced on her.
>For example is was pathetic that Shuri in black panther was presented as being smarter than Tony Stark and Bruce Banner.
I have no idea about the MCU and as you know, don't know why people care about it so much at all
1. Based on my observations of woke content. Supported by professional critics such as the Critical Drinker.
2. Correct. Flynn's brother and his team are shown as being quite competent in the real world. As I stated in my originial post. the show had some woke elements that did NOT dominate and completely ruin the show. If the woke elements had not been there, maybe the ratings would have been a little better and the show might have survived.
3. The girl is a teenager. Presented as tech wiz. I'm fine with that. Presented as showing up Bruce Banner and Tony Stark? Fucking retarded.
1. The Critical Drinker, who I've pointed out many times mostly only watches the MCU, Star Wars and shitty franchise movies and live-action disney remakes. He's not a reliable source of information. And you yourself are fantastically ignorant about modern TV.
2. So they were better. So the show demonstrated that men in this instance were better than a woman at something. So it's not a rule.
1. He is a published author and I find his reviews to be quite good. And he is not alone in his views. Plenty of other critics and milions of fans.
2. Ok. This is nuance here. Just Flynn and her brother were in a situation workign together. Flynn had to be better than her. There were other female characters such as their mother, that we can only assume were completely incompetent gamers.
That is not relevant since there was no...plot about the mother gaming. Teh brother was not "Better" than her, they did not engage on that issue at all.
THe wokeness is there in regard to Flynn and her brother.
1. I don't give a fuck. Lots of people are published authors who you'd likely think talk shit. He's ignorant about the breadth of modern TV and film. He literally only watches mainstream cinema and Disney+ TV shows (with the occasional Netflix and HBO show).
2. And Burton "had to be better at her" in real life. So?
Do you normally assume that video gamers have parents who are hyper-competent video gamers? And there wasn't really a "plot" about Flynn being a better gamer. What are you on about?
1. He is right, I am right, and you are wrong.
2. I have no idea. You are the one that asked. I though you were making a point about the show not being completely dominated by wokeness, which is what I said in my original post.
3. Wow. I explicitly stated that I was explaining the nuance of woke limits. And did so. NOw you are asking what my point was. Hilarious. Your stonewall is strong.
1. He is wrong. I can name tons of shows that the Critical Drinker seems to know nothing about, and should be in his field of interest. I have done so. I genuinely believe I have watched a wider array of modern TV than him. But he instead orbits the MCU and Star Wars like an idiot.
2. So why is it okay for Burton to be better than her in real life but not okay for her to be better at gaming than him?
1. Irrelevant.
2. For the clear reasons I explained repeatedly before. Stop playing stupid.
1. No it is not. He doesn't have enough exposure to modern day TV and film to make broad assessments about it. He's incredibly lacking and it's embarassing.
2. The reasons you "explained" that were rooted in literal sexism and/or your own ignorance towards modern media.
1. Blah, blah, blah. You are reaching for excuses for your opposition to him.
2. Funny. YOu said sexism like that is supposed to mean somethhing to me. Shove it up your ass.
1. I've provided enough evidence for this.
2. I genuinely believe you are a sexist.
1. You've whined that his coverage isn't to your liking, Big fucking deal.
2. You offered a name calling INSTEAD of an logical explanation for why my point was wrong. That is you being an asshole and you losing the argument. You know my complaint is valid, but you don't like it. SO you are trying to invent excuses to marginalize me, at least in your own mind, so you have an exccuse to dismiss my arguments. Which you dont like. And you know they are correct.
1. Right, and my point is that because his coverage is narrow, it means he can't make genuine assessments about modern media. There's a whole world outside of the MCU, Star Wars and franchise films and remakes - but he orbits them.
2. I have responded, in detail, multiple times to your defence for your double standards - and I believe it is rooted in sexism. It's that simple.
1. Said the man that is pretending that woke isn't a thing. You don't expect to be taken seriously after that, so you?
2. It is not a double standard to judge two different acttions by diffeerent standards if one is part of a trend and the other is not.
3. Saying sexism makes you an asshole.
1. I never said woke wasn't a thing. I said that its impact, such as it is, doesn't detract from the high quality of modern entertainment.
I repeat again: There's a whole world outside of the MCU, Star Wars and franchise films and remakes - but he orbits them.
2. Except you've provided no evidence that it's "part of a trend" nor even any reason to believe that its presence in this show was that at all. It's also a very 'woke' position for you to take, by the way. Akin to the progressive leftist complaining about depictions of disabled people in media.
3. I don't give a fuck. I consider you a sexist.
And you didn't answer a related question: Does this mean since you presumably think that there's a wave of anti-white racism that white people should not be depicted as rapists?
We have a fine point we are discussing. There is no need to expand the scope of this discussion Stay tuned, I am sure RACE and WOKENESS will come up organically soon enough.
Tough fucking shit. I'm quite happy and capable to "expand the scope" of discussion. You literally bought up this:
"would you write a... random rapist character as a black guy, thus giving at least the APPEARENCE of agreeing with and supporting the TREND of anti-black racism, or would you try to avoid that?"
Given how you seem to view the world, it implies you personally think that external circumstances should influence writing. Now I know that you think that there's a wave of contemporary anti-white racism. So I'm asking you, based on the reasoning you're using for your anti-black example - does that mean you think that white people should not be depicted as rapists?
I gave you a limited scenario to ask your action that context. That you claim you would ignore the context, I don't believe.
It meant no more than that. Expanding the discussion to the whole world, will only reduce clarity.
That you want to do that, is your brain dealing with it knowing that you are wrong.
>I gave you a limited scenario to ask your action that context. That you claim you would ignore the context, I don't believe.
I would entirely. And no, I'm throwing the analogy back in your face. You already believe yourself that there is a problem of "anti-white racism". So I am asking, on the same basis you asked me that question - if you think it's wrong whenever a TV show or film depicts a white person as a rapist or a murderer? Do you or do you not?
>It meant no more than that. Expanding the discussion to the whole world, will only reduce clarity.
By "whole world" I mean in terms of your *worldview* - how *you* view the world.
What do you imagine is the value of asking this question?
shareThe same value you thought you would attain by asking me the question in reverse. I answered, so I am asking you back:
You already believe yourself that there is a problem of "anti-white racism". So I am asking, on the same basis you asked me that question - if you think it's wrong whenever a TV show or film depicts a white person as a rapist or a murderer? Do you or do you not?
But the questions are completely different. I asked you about your reaction to facing a situtation like those of the actual writers of the show.
Your question had nothing about that.
You have realized that you lost the debate and are now trying to just marginalize me, so you can dismiss my arguments, since you cannot deal with them.
>But the questions are completely different. I asked you about your reaction to facing a situtation like those of the actual writers of the show.
You gave me a specific scenario that focused an alternative scenario where society had general prejudice towards black people. You asked if I would accept a TV show or film depicting a black rapist. I would because I believe strongly in creative freedom.
Now, I'll ask AGAIN: You already believe yourself that there is a problem of "anti-white racism". So I am asking, on the same basis you asked me that question - if you think it's wrong whenever a TV show or film depicts a white person as a rapist or a murderer? Do you or do you not?
Also, from the book:
"“You still walking point, for that lawyer in Tulsa?”
“He isn’t playing. Busy lawyering, I guess.”
“You’re the best he had. Showed him that.”
“Just a game.” Telling herself, more than him.
“Might as well been getting himself a Marine.”
She thought she saw that thing the haptics did, then, that shiver, then
gone.
“Need you to sub for me,” he said, like nothing had happened. “Five-
hour shift. Fly a quadcopter.”
"Something she’d gotten from Burton and the Corps, that you didn’t do
things in the clothes you sat around in. You got yourself squared away,
then your intent did too. When she’d been Dwight’s recon point, she’d
made sure she got cleaned up. Doubted she’d be doing that again, even
though it was the best money she’d made. She didn’t like gaming, not the
way Madison and Janice did. She’d done it for the money, got so good at
one particular rank and mission in Operation Northwind that Dwight
wouldn’t have anybody else. Except that he would, by now."
Ok, what do you think that proves?
shareThe book literally implies she's a very skilled gamer.
shareWow. How many times have I said that I have no problem with her being a great gamer?
Seriously, it is like the moment your brain is left alone, it starts twisting shit aroudn to confuse yourself. In SECONDS.
>Wow. How many times have I said that I have no problem with her being a great gamer?
But if she's written as better than Burton, apparently that's wrong, right? Literal unforced sexism.
Is it wrong for a woman to be written as better than a man in anything?
1. You know that I have no problem with her being a great gamer. So why do you keep lying about my position like that?
2. You calling my position "sexism" is you being an asshole. A fucking asshole.
3. I have stated that I have no problem with Flynn being a great gamer. Given this that clearly shows that I have no problem with the rest of the show when she is shown kicking ass, both female and male. So, that was a stupid question. Indeed, I doubt it was a real question. It was more an accusation of sexism. That is you losing the argument and retreating to name calling. You have lost the debate at this point. It is time to wrap it up.
1. But you do have a problem if the show writes her as a gamer.
2. Cope and seethe. I believe your position is rooted in sexism.
3. You do have a problem with her being better than Burton though. Because you are a sexist.
There is no excuse for the "questions" you are asking me now.
What has happened is that you have lost the debate.
We can see this by the fact that you have given up on serious questions and are now reduced to... beyond strawman questions, where the question is really just an accusation of sexism.
By reducing the thread to just a flamewar with you calling me names, you have ended the discussion.
BECAUSE, you know that you are unable to defend your position.
ALSO, because if you can marginalize me, then my ideas can be dismissed, at least in your own mind, and possibly in the larger context.
>There is no excuse for the "questions" you are asking me now.
I'll ask whatever the fuck I like and with interest in your pathetic whining and excuses for why you won't answer them.
>We can see this by the fact that you have given up on serious questions and are now reduced to... beyond strawman questions, where the question is really just an accusation of sexism.
I have directly responded to your, ahem, "reasoning" for why you think it's unacceptable for a TV show or film to depict a woman being better than a man at something (but reject the reverse). I have done so multiple time.
(1) Given how you seem to view the world, it implies you personally think that external circumstances should influence writing. Now I know that you think that there's a wave of contemporary anti-white racism. So I'm asking you, based on the reasoning you're using for your anti-black example - does that mean you think that white people should not be depicted as rapists?
(2) Is it inherently "woke" is a transperson is cast in a role in a TV show?
YOur unsupported denial is noted. I see nothing there to respond to.
share(1) Given how you seem to view the world, it implies you personally think that external circumstances should influence writing. Now I know that you think that there's a wave of contemporary anti-white racism. So I'm asking you, based on the reasoning you're using for your anti-black example - does that mean you think that white people should not be depicted as rapists?
(2) Is it inherently "woke" is a transperson is cast in a role in a TV show?
I understand. Since you have lost the debate, you are trying to define me as ist or phobe so that you have an excuse to dismiss my arguments. Since you lost to my arguments.
This bores me.
I am more interested in what you think your reason(s) were for repeatedly lying about my position.
Why do you think you did that? Can you not see that that means that you KNOW that I am right and that you are wrong?
(1) Given how you seem to view the world, it implies you personally think that external circumstances should influence writing. Now I know that you think that there's a wave of contemporary anti-white racism. So I'm asking you, based on the reasoning you're using for your anti-black example - does that mean you think that white people should not be depicted as rapists?
(2) Is it inherently "woke" is a transperson is cast in a role in a TV show?
Not answering anything until you answer.
I understand. Since you have lost the debate, you are trying to define me as ist or phobe so that you have an excuse to dismiss my arguments. Since you lost to my arguments.
This bores me.
I am more interested in what you think your reason(s) were for repeatedly lying about my position.
Why do you think you did that? Can you not see that that means that you KNOW that I am right and that you are wrong?
(1) Given how you seem to view the world, it implies you personally think that external circumstances should influence writing. Now I know that you think that there's a wave of contemporary anti-white racism. So I'm asking you, based on the reasoning you're using for your anti-black example - does that mean you think that white people should not be depicted as rapists?
(2) Is it inherently "woke" is a transperson is cast in a role in a TV show?
Not answering anything until you answer.
I understand. Since you have lost the debate, you are trying to define me as ist or phobe so that you have an excuse to dismiss my arguments. Since you lost to my arguments.
This bores me.
I am more interested in what you think your reason(s) were for repeatedly lying about my position.
Why do you think you did that? Can you not see that that means that you KNOW that I am right and that you are wrong?
(1) Given how you seem to view the world, it implies you personally think that external circumstances should influence writing. Now I know that you think that there's a wave of contemporary anti-white racism. So I'm asking you, based on the reasoning you're using for your anti-black example - does that mean you think that white people should not be depicted as rapists?
(2) Is it inherently "woke" is a transperson is cast in a role in a TV show?
Not answering anything until you answer.
1. At this point the trope of the evul white male is so overused that going there is not a good idea.
2. In every case I have seen so far, yes.
1. So you genuinely think that no white men can be written as rapists in anything?
According to you Game of Thrones is woke. According to you Vikings (not Vikings: Valhalla) is woke.
2. What makes Inspector Lowbeer from The Peripheral "woke"?
1. I said what I said. Address it, do not change what I said. Do you realize that when you do that, you are a. being an asshole and b. admitting that you know my position is correct.
2. Again, I answered you and instead of addressing what I actually say, you instead make up shit. This is the behavior of a lib that knows he has lost the argument.
1. What is there to address? I disagree that there's a trope of "evil white male" anymore than there's a trope of "heroic white male". There are as many heroic white men in fiction as there are evil, and I have seen plenty non-white evil people.
2. What am I making up? I asked if it is inherently woke if a transperson is cast in a show. You said "in every case I have seen so far". You've seen Peripheral, so I'm asking you how Inspector Lowbeer is woke?
1. So SAY that, instead of making up shit and claiming it is what I meant.
2. Tranny presented as a strong and powerful character instead of the mentally ill basket case they really are. That is woke nonsense.
1. What? You literally said that "the trope of the evul white male is so overused that going there is not a good idea." Not only is this unargued for, it's the same reasoning woke people used to complain about ethnic minority depictions.
2. Oh okay, so basically a transgendered person must only be depicted as a "mentally ill basketcase" or it's somehow "woke". Yeah you're just a hateful piece of shit.
1. And there is a big difference between that, and what you said I said. The more dishonest you are, the more clear it is, that you know you are in teh wrong on this issue.
2. LOL. You are the one being hateful here. I'm being honest about people with BIG problems.
1. What is specifically incorrect about what I said? Why is your complaint about how white men are portrayed any different than a wokists complaint about how black women are portrayed?
2. What am I being hateful towards?
2a. The person who portrays Inspector Lowbeer is an accomplished actress. She is not a "mentally ill basketcase". The character of Inspector Lowsbeer is also not a caricature of transpeople, indeed within the show there are no references to the characters transgenderism (or that they are played by a transwoman). You are literally arguing that all depictions of transpeople must depict them negatively, or it's somehow "woke". This derives from your hateful bigotry against transpeople.
The other criticism of course is that LGBT people are purely portrayed as stereotypes. Inspector Lowsbeer is nothing like that.
1. Stating that the evul white man trope is overused, does not mean that a white man can never be the bad guy. That you needed me to explain that to you, makes you look like you are a stonewalling troll boi.
2. Me for one. Calling me names.
3. An accomplished actress? Well that means he really has it together huh? I goggled him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Billings
Lets see, history of being homeless, drug addicted and a prostitute! Clearly has it all together. Oh and politicallly active, what a shocker.
1. You said it should be "best avoided". And there's no evidence that it is overused.
2. Your attitude to LGBT is hateful and nasty. You are literally arguing that all depictions of transpeople must depict them negatively, or it's somehow "woke". This derives from your hateful bigotry against transpeople.
Is that genuinely, honestly what you think? That whenever a transperson is in anything they should always, at all times, be betrayed as a nutcase?
3. So what if they're politically active? Many people are.
You do realise a history of drug abuse, sexual addiction is COMMON AS FUCK amongst many actors straight, gay or trans?
They've been an accomplished actor for many years now.
I should also like to add that your position on (1) to me is just a mirror of wokeism. Woke people will argue that black people or disabled people or hispanic people or asian people are stereotyped into certain roles and this should be stopped.
You're saying that white people are stereotyped into certain roles and should be stopped.
This is wokeism.
That is nonsense.
shareHow is that remotely nonsense?
You are literally arguing the same line as progressives. They will argue that it's wrong to depict black people as villainous because it engenders stereotypes against black people. You are doing the same regarding white people in regards to depicting them as rapists.
That we use similar words is irrelvant due to one claimed situation being true and one being false.
Also, woke is far more than simply what you said in this context.
THus your previosu post was nonsense.
>That we use similar words is irrelvant due to one claimed situation being true and one being false.
Your claim is also bollocks. There are plenty of heroic white protagonists in modern fiction, and plenty of villainous antagonists who are not white.
>Also, woke is far more than simply what you said in this context.
Absolutely, but it's an aspect of their thought process - which you mirror.
Woke boy.
It makes no sense that Flynn was BETTER than her brother. He enjoyed gaming while it was a job to her. He had a military background while she did not. He was cybernetically enhanced to have better teamwork with his team and she was not.
it would have been fine if she was good and sometimes filled in for him, or they shared an account or her style of play added something, ect. ect. ect.
But no, they had to have the Girl Boss moment.
It was a woke element and it was a flaw in the show.
>It makes no sense that Flynn was BETTER than her brother. He enjoyed gaming while it was a job to her.
Some people are simply very skilled at certain things. She's written that way in the book. Does source material not matter when its convenient to you?
>But no, they had to have the Girl Boss moment.
At no point did it ever remotely feel that way at all.
1. Sure. It would take that card to just have flynn be in the same league as her brother. Her being BETTER was too much.
2. Cannon matters. In this case the book has a woke element. My point remains.
3. It CLUNKED. I turned it off right there, and didn't go back for over a week.
1. This is genuinely pathetic. You are a little delicate woke snowflake who whines about the most laughable shit.
2. Oh so the source material in your mind can go fuck itself.
3. Making you utterly pathetic. Dear me.
1. I made a mention of it in a post. You are the one making a holy war about it. Oh, and remember what I said about you seething with hate? LOL.
2. The complain stands. That it was true to source material does not change that.
3. I'm tired of putting up with the various bigotries of hte hollywood left. They want to make propaganda instead of entertainment, they lose me.
1. It made you stop watching for a week.
2. The complaint is noted and dismissed as the crying of a reactionary snowflake.
3. So go and watch shitty 1960s westerns and war romps if modern culture makes you cry and faint like a little bitch. And, by the way, this has nothing to do with Hollywood and more to do with the source material.
1. Correct. Why should I put up with anti-male bigotry?
2. You inability to accept the validity of my complaint is a reflection of your insecurity about your world view and your closed mind.
3. No. I am part of sci fi fandom and I will watch both old and new content and voice my displeasure as woke assholes churn out shit content. If this enrages you, that is a you problem that you need to deal with .
1. That you call it "anti-male bigotry" is genuinely laughable.
2. It's a nonsense complaint. I have no issues with the line (I can't even remember it).
And what "closed mind"? Explain please.
3. Then why don't you actually WATCH OTHER SCI-FI. Why haven't you watched any of Dark, The Expanse, Severance, See, Silo, The 100, The Lazarus Project, Night Sky, 1899, 3%, Snowpiercer, Foundation, Tales from the Loop, Station Eleven, Hello Tomorrow?
1, The difference here is that I explained my reasoning, and all you have is the logical fallacy of argument by assertion.
2. YOUR closed mind. You are unable to respect other points of view.
3. I try. But so often when I give something a chance it turns out to be garbage. They are working to drive me away be producting shit.
1. Your reasoning is to the extent that nothing where a woman is depicted better than a man at something is allowed, but you accept the reverse. It's rank hypocrisy.
2. I find your attitudes to be hypocritical, reactionary and, ironically, woke.
3. And what ones there have you "tried"? You literally only referenced Altered Carbon when I mentioned that list to you in the past.
And most of those examples are well rated, highly rated in many cases shows. The Expanse is one of the best-rated sci-fi shows ever.
1. No, I made a point that it is a flaw, ie "woke" that a man is not allowed to be depicted as better than a woman. Accepting that sometimes a man is sometimes depicted as better than a woman does not conflict wtih that. In a healthy culture, men and women would fall randomly about the place in plots without being constrained by anti-male wokeness. This is a simple point and you refuse to honestly address it. You instead are CONSTANTLY LYING about my position.
2. Except your clalim of hypocriscy is based on purposefully misunderstanding my posititon. As I have constantly pointed out to you.
3. My recently I gave Wolf Pack a try. Old smg fan. My god it is woke ass garbage. I barely got though the pilot and was done.
1. On what basis do you argue that it's "not allowed" to a man to be depicted as being better than a woman? This is all rooted in a false premise.
2. No, you have not. You specifically stated that "man being better than a woman = good, fine" but the reverse "wrong and woke".
3. Dude, you watched a supernatural teen drama with shitty IMDB ratings.
1. What is the other possible explainations, other than political motivations?
2. That tis your misunderstanding of my position which I have corrected you many times. This is where your mind glitches and you edit your perception and memory to protect your weak world view.
3.Sometimes they can be quite fun. Roswell back in the day was great. BUFFY was fantastic.
1. That's not what I asked you. How is it "not allowed" for men to be written as better than women at something? This is a false premise.
2. You literally directly confirmed it in multiple prior posts.
3. Right, and I will ask again: Why haven't you watched any of Dark, The Expanse, Severance, See, Silo, The 100, The Lazarus Project, Night Sky, 1899, 3%, Snowpiercer, Foundation, Tales from the Loop, Station Eleven, Hello Tomorrow?
1. I don't understand how the woke mob enforces it's conformity. But I can see and discuss the results.
2. And there you go. I have no idea what you are referring to there. I have soem guesses, but it doens't matter. You are stonewalling.
3. Couldn't say. Some trailers look good, but I just don't get the motivation to actually give them a chance.
1. Except they don't. It's literally all in your head. You've made repeated false claims about modern media.
2. Me: "I'll ask again: Would it be acceptable if Burton was the "world-class gamer"? Would that be like saying men are better at everything?"
You replied yes, that would be fine.
3. So much for wanting to watch sci-fi.
1. No, it was based exactly on the way you said it.
2. How is Lowbeer unrealistic?
3. It added nothing and took away nothing. The actor was chosen because they fulfilled what they had in mind for the role. That's all how many roles are cast. They aren't necessarily designed for a particular sex or race. And notably, Lowbeer wasn't a caricature. There was no reference to them being trans - it had nothing to do with their character. They were just a character who happened to be portrayed by a transperson.
Also I love how you complain about how men are depicted in fiction, but insist that transpeople should only and always be depicted as mentally unwell basketcases without exception.
Hypocrisy of the highest order
Complaining about them being presented unrealistically is not a demand that they always be presented as mentally unwell basket cases.
You keep having to take my argument, and exaggerate it to an extreme before you address it.
Ask yourself why you keep doing that.
I quote:
"Tranny presented as a strong and powerful character instead of the mentally ill basket case they really are. That is woke nonsense."
Your complaint about Ainsley Lowbeer being "woke" is that they were not presented like that.
Your words there imply that the choices the writer faces are either or. Either
"strong and powerful" or "basket case".
My complaint is that the woke writers presented the character unrealistically for POLITICAL reasons instead dof story reasonss.
>Your words there imply that the choices the writer faces are either or. Either
"strong and powerful" or "basket case".
No, the sentence is quite clear. You are suggesting that transpeople should only be depicted as "mentally ill basket case they reall are".
>My complaint is that the woke writers presented the character unrealistically for POLITICAL reasons instead dof story reasonss.
How were they "unrealistic"? Because they are in a position of authority? You have failed to demonstrate your claim that transpeople cannot be leaders or figures of authority in any capacity.
1, "Suggesting"? So, which is it? Are my wordsds clear, or are you picking up on a "suggestion"?
Correct answer. YOu suck at understanding people different than you. You need to ask more question, REAL QUESTIONS, instead of assuming you have a clue and builiding a house of cards on a shit assumption.
2, Not at all. Even today we see idiot politicians appointing trannies to high position. And then they steal luggage. For one example.
What did having a trannie character add to the story?
1. You presented a dichtonomy. Either they're written as "strong and powerful" or should be written as "mentally ill basketcases as they are".
2. So again you are arguing that transpeople should always be written to be conniving, or evil or deceptive, or dangerous and if they're not its "woke".
>What did having a trannie character add to the story?
What? What difference would it have made if Ainsley Lowsbeer was straight?
By this logic you could ask "Why was Conner black"? "Why was Flynn a woman?"
1. Did I SAY that they had to be written that way, or was that YOU?
2. I never used any of those words. Where did they come from?Oh, they came from YOU. YOU made them up and then attributed those words to me. Time for your brain to glitch again.
3. What would it have added? I don't know that it would have "added" anything. I ask again, what did having a trannie character add?
1. You complained that it was written as it was. You gave a binary choice.
2. So how should transpeople be written then? Be specific.
3. It added no more, and no less than any good actor would have done in any role. Does a character need to justify their transness to you?
1. Did I? Or did you assume that?
2. NOT unrealistically.
3. Come on, it added something. You know what it added. SAY IT.
1. Except it's not.
2. No, it would nott be saying that, because it is not part of a political movement that requires men to be bettter.
This is a simple point. Your refusal to face it, is...a little sad.
3. That makes no sense.
99 times out of 100 male gamers are better than females.
shareI mean, this is highly debateable, but at the same time - does that mean that anytime a show suggests an a woman is better than a man at gaming it's woke?
sharethe best are men....
And the percentage of professional female gamers is only 5%, while the rest 95% belongs exclusively to men.
so not debatable at all....... it's the truth.
so yes, in this instance it is very woke.
-
🤣
share>And the percentage of professional female gamers is only 5%, while the rest 95% belongs exclusively to men.
More men game. It's that simple. Also men are more wildly represented in skill as some of the best, and worst, in general.
>so yes, in this instance it is very woke.
Except the show isn't saying "all women are better". It's just saying this particular woman is world class.
"It's just saying this particular woman is world class."
which is very rare... therefore it's woke.
Like Rey from star wars.... she was a scavenger, then suddenly a great fighter and pilot!
It is following that mold, and people can see it.
very simple really.
>which is very rare... therefore it's woke.
This simply does not follow.
>It is following that mold, and people can see it.
So by your logic, if a woman is written to be better than a man at something in fiction... does that make it "woke"?
Should women always be written as worse than men at everything?
nope..... they are better at nagging
shareSo you are another user who clearly has misogynistic attitudes.
shareyou failure to understand that this show and many others are woke shit, is clear.
you will not change your mind.
so might as well have some fun with your dumb self
>you failure to understand that this show and many others are woke shit, is clear.
Because it portrays a woman as better than a man at something?
That's a bummer, because I liked it.
You probably would have liked it too.
It was somewhat boring and non-sensical, but watchable. I think the source material is not offering much for a multi-seasonal show.
The wokiness was bearable. William Gibson is a fanatically woke person, but he has enough sense to not show it that much in his books.
Not surprised. I watched it since I love all sci-fi.
But it was boring, confusing and felt like they didn't know what to do with this idea. I could barely finish it. And dont even remember much of what was happening and how it ended.
And Chloë Grace Moretz can't act and is not a star Hollywood tries to pretend she is. She can't lead such big budget productions.
Looks like wont be watching anymore amazons shows before a few seasons are out... This hurts the companies reputation by not follow through with conclusions to their TV shows.
It had liberal elements but it was far from current woke standards.
This was one of the better series on Amazon. I still can't believe they cancelled this and are still pouring money on the dumpster fire that is Rings of Woke.
Obviously, they couldn't spend for two big budget series, so Amazon chose the worst one.