"Woke" Franchises

Stargazer said:
You didn't really answer my question, and you kind of just agreed that you have no principled moral objection. The "context" is really you just being annoyed at the way things are written and preferring it was done differently.
Click to expand...
Yeah... and?


Stargazer said:
That's not even worth getting mad about.
Click to expand...

I disagree. as much as it's a meme of mockery, "bread and circuses" are an integral part of society and a natural part of humanity. People need food for their bellies and entertainment for their their sanity. If the bread is stale and the circuses suck then there is going to be a problem. It sounds More like you two just don't agree on why they suck.


Stargazer said:
Why not just get over it and move on to greener pastures?
Click to expand...
Because these hack storytellers are like bad CEOs they drain a well beloved story for all it's worth and move on to the next thing. Move on to greener pastures and they'll follow you like locust consuming until there is nothing left to consume.
Stargazer said:
Well that wasn't even in the original Gospel of John, but that's a whole other can of worms.
Click to expand...
Even if you want to debate whether or not that story is true (I personally think it is) the principle is there in other scriptures as well.
 
Last edited:
Stargazer said:
You didn't really answer my question, and you kind of just agreed that you have no principled moral objection. The "context" is really you just being annoyed at the way things are written and preferring it was done differently. That's not even worth getting mad about. Why not just get over it and move on to greener pastures?



It's not your money though, so it's really none of your business what they do with it.



Well that wasn't even in the original Gospel of John, but that's a whole other can of worms.
Click to expand...
I did answer your question: I have no moral objections to OldWho and the earlier period of nuWho because although they had Left and Liberal messages and themes, they weren't overt pieces of propaganda driven by The Message and malicious intent, both in-show and out-show as they are now. That's the context, and there are vast differences between the two.

I'm pissed because a show I've loved since childhood has been basically desecrated by certain types of people (yes, you know the ones without my having to point them out) to further their warped agendas.
 
Jormungandr said:
I did answer your question: I have no moral objections to OldWho and the earlier period of nuWho because although they had Left and Liberal messages and themes, they weren't overt pieces of propaganda driven by The Message and malicious intent, both in-show and out-show as they are now. That's the context, and there are vast differences between the two.

I'm pissed because a show I've loved since childhood has been basically desecrated by certain types of people (yes, you know the ones without my having to point them out) to further their warped agendas.
Click to expand...

"Malicious intent" of what? What part of "The Message" do you object to? The thing is, if you don't really seem to have much of a moral standard of your own, complaints of the show being "desecrated" are kind of meaningless, coming from you. You talk about their "warped agendas" but you don't actually object to their agendas in any real way. You're on their team, at the end of the day. And nothing you say is reason for them to stop.
 
Stargazer said:
"Malicious intent" of what? What part of "The Message" do you object to? The thing is, if you don't really seem to have much of a moral standard of your own, complaints of the show being "desecrated" are kind of meaningless, coming from you. You talk about their "warped agendas" but you don't actually object to their agendas in any real way. You're on their team, at the end of the day. And nothing you say is reason for them to stop.
Click to expand...
Everything you just said is retarded.
 
Stargazer said:
"Malicious intent" of what? What part of "The Message" do you object to? The thing is, if you don't really seem to have much of a moral standard of your own, complaints of the show being "desecrated" are kind of meaningless, coming from you. You talk about their "warped agendas" but you don't actually object to their agendas in any real way. You're on their team, at the end of the day. And nothing you say is reason for them to stop.
Click to expand...
That has got to be the most stupidest thing anyone has ever said to me on this forum. facepalm
 
Stargazer said:
Then you probably don't understand the real conflict with "woke" agendas.
Click to expand...
Or you don't, and because your standards aren't the standards of pretty much everyone else on the whole (that being gay is inherently immoral/wrong, for example), they're wrong/immoral or they even support this woke madness in your eyes. facepalm

If you seriously believe that someone not caring that a good character is gay (or, shockingly for you, liking a good character despite their being gay), or agreeing with a theme or message that pollution is wrong or frying people with WMDs is wrong, all equates to supporting or liking characters, storylines, and politics that are just outright propaganda pieces to push utterly revulsive ideologies to anyone with common sense and a brain (such as transtrenderism), then you're, frankly, utterly clueless.
 
Jormungandr said:
Or you don't, and because your standards aren't the standards of pretty much everyone else on the whole (that being gay is inherently immoral/wrong, for example), they're wrong/immoral or they even support this woke madness in your eyes. facepalm

If you seriously believe that someone not caring that a good character is gay (or, shockingly for you, liking a good character despite their being gay), or agreeing with a theme or message that pollution is wrong or frying people with WMDs is wrong, all equates to supporting or liking characters, storylines, and politics that are just outright propaganda pieces to push utterly revulsive ideologies to anyone with common sense and a brain (such as transtrenderism), then you're, frankly, utterly clueless.
Click to expand...

It means you've abandoned the sort of moral standard that would give you the basis to say that the ideologies in question are "utterly revulsive" in the first place. You can't even define wht exactly you find to be so bad. Your whinging about Doctor Who is ideologically incoherent, and the "transtrenders" know it. And they aren't going to care.
 
Vyor said:
Except that we can: forcing it on children and making it out to be a purely Good thing and that everyone who is gay and shit is Good and without flaw.
Click to expand...
Are any of the doctors companions children? No then don’t use that as a red herring because it takes the punch away every time we use that argument.
 
Vyor said:
That isn't what was said at all, thank you for playing.
Click to expand...
No that was what was said. Jormangandr was bitching about Bill whatever saying a tranny was being political yet Jack Harkness a bisexual is just a good character.

They are the same woke bullshit.
 
Stargazer said:
It means you've abandoned the sort of moral standard that would give you the basis to say that the ideologies in question are "utterly revulsive" in the first place. You can't even define wht exactly you find to be so bad. Your whinging about Doctor Who is ideologically incoherent, and the "transtrenders" know it. And they aren't going to care.
Click to expand...
Again, your moral standards aren't the moral standards of the rest of the population. I'll say it again: Being gay, Bi, or lesbian is not morally wrong, and being fine with such things in real-life and in-universe, that someone is gay, Bi, or lesbian, does not equate to them supporting all this ideological bullshit they're pushing across media and in real-life.

However, in universe using a gay character, or a Black character, or a transtrender character as part of overt, real-life propaganda is a completely different story. Again, Jack Harkness and Bill Potts are completely different, as the former was an organic character with depth and the latter was basically just a mouthpiece for racism and queer ideology. That's what I and others object to.

You can't seem to differentiate the two, stating that because I and others like me are fine with well-written, good gay characters and such in-universe, and stories that have Liberal messages and such in oldWho (like using WMDs is bad), in those contexts, that we're fine with the Doctor suddenly becoming a woman because of real-life feminist principles using nuWho as a soapbox; that we're fine with a companion of the Doctor being a transtrender teen (a cult-like ideology that has groomed, brainwashed, and mutilated countless vulnerable people), and that we're fine with the Leftoid writers now in charge basically pissing on everything that's been established in the show because of DEI and Groomers United revulsive bullshit (even down to character dialogue, such as criticizing the current Tennant Doctor as "not being a woman anymore", and yes that was a line in the latest Special).

If you can't seem to understand the difference in context, and are falling back on the stance that "if you're fine with gay, Bi, or lesbian characters that aren't just ideological props, or if you're fine with common themes like anti-war messages, you must support what these nutcases are pushing", then there's something wrong with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top