Oh, shut up. You’ve sailed past annoying, though satire, and now you’re just coasting in boring.
As an Englishman, this hurts.
It hurts even more that so many here close their eyes in life, and prove it true.
Yep, Rose in 2005. From then on, all Davies’ scripts had the word “gay” in them. There were rumours of a gay agenda, to which Davies replied ‘If there is a gay agenda it is to remind the world that gay people exist.”
Before the show started Davies declared “No I will not make the Doctor gay” (he has now in 2024 NuWho).
The BBC really are the ultimate far-leftists.
Faced with criticism, they double down.
Faced with criticism, dropping viewers and loss of revenue (record numbers not paying license fee) they triple down.
The thing that really annoys me is that people seem to have short memories.
In 2005 NuWho immediately split the fanbase by being woke. “That’ll never work, he’s gay and she’s an alien” and the word “gay” being in every single one of Davies’ scripts led to the mocking label of his “gay agenda.” He even acknowledged it!
Every critic these days, from Critical Drinker to Geeks & Gamers, talks about how NuWho is now a woke abomination but forget it eagerly adopted it from the FIRST STORY.
It’s all in the story, now you’re being silly.
She’s a super skilled elite assassin trained by a ferocious warrior monk, whose sole motive is revenge. If you don’t like that, fine, but stop with the Mary Sue insinuation. You just sound ignorant.
Which is why I said, “your opinion is ill informed.” It sounds like you’ve watched a fight or two and know nothing about the film.
You ignore everything else I’ve said- specifically, the portrayals of the men and evil women- to focus on “by the power of my vagina.”
Reach, pure and simple.
Firstly, there’s only two movies, not “the other two.” So you’ve possibly watched half, which makes your criticisms ill-informed.
You’ve also ignored my points on good man, competent men, evil women and motherhood; all things that SJWs viciously hate.
As I said originally, you’re just reaching. Don’t like a strong female lead? Fine, but be honest about it. Don’t try and insinuate it’s in the vein of current_year politics.
Yes, I have no idea what that was about…
You’re reaching. Kill Bill is a hyper-exaggerated “guy screws over girl so girl gets revenge,” which is fine. Not all the men in the movie are incompetent (Bill, Bud, Pai Mei) not all are bad (Hanzo), and the vast majority of women are evil and unsympathetic (Sofie, Gogo, Elle, O-Ren, Vernita.)
On top of that The Bride is utterly overjoyed to find her daughter alive, keeps her, and motherhood runs throughout the movie(s).
Movies have deteriorated drastically over the last ten years, but this is in no way your SJW style film.
Steven in Django Unchained is written as thoroughly despicable, smarter than Candie, loves power, and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. And he’s slaughtered by Django at the end.
You recall wrong, there’s at least one long-haired young girl in the Crazy 88 who is killed by the Bride.
Sadiq Khan and the UK police currently salivating over this news
I’d say he blatantly fancies White, and saying “my genetics say…” as well as White’s “bones”… yeah.
But, still, he doesn’t try to objectively claim Blair White is a woman.
Nowhere in that clip montage does he say White is objectively a woman.
He never uses the word “she.”
He constantly uses the word “person.”
Title is bait.
Love how the left adore swearing to make themselves sound passionate and genuine.
As opposed to…childish idiots.
I would categorically state that person is NOT arguing in good faith.
My initial point was that although his morals clearly disagreed with something, their morals were equally as valid. He then attempted to have his cake and eat it by waffling ‘the government and the people are likely to differ’, but then contradicting that with ‘if most people agree with the government on this that’s wrong too.’
Rather than outright say “I believe this is wrong and I don’t care if the whole country disagrees,’ he tries to hide behind the “will of the people” and then contradicts himself anyway. He clearly doesn’t know the general Malaysian attitude to homosexuality, and tries to fence sit in a disingenuous way.
Possibly you’re there, considering your juvenile attitude.
Oh stop being silly. Your rebuttal opened with “trying to define my position,” and when I told you how you were wrong, you waffled. Unlike myself, who accurately summarised your stance and you agreed.
Your infantile “well, gee I hope” could easily be redirected at YOU for finding out other posters have views different than yours.
“Please learn,” indeed!
It seems like this logic would exclude any conversation about unjust laws
Unjust in YOUR opinion. The country involved? Maybe not so much. Again: it’s their country, not yours. Tough.
If you can't apply your own moral world view to the situations of others, why have a discussion forum at all?
Conversely: put your adult pants on and RESPECT DIVERSITY; that other cultures do NOT have the same values as you do.
I think my moral position is correct, as does anyone advocating for a moral position, including you
Correct, obvious, and irrelevant. The reason I said what I did was because of your erroneous initial claim!
The will of the government is quite often not the will of the people. Even if it is the will of the people, the tyranny of the majority is a very real phenomenon
This is you trying to have your cake and eat it. No need to fence-sit; your position is obvious. YOU think this law is immoral, and YOU think it should be different, you clearly care neither what the minority or majority think.
Unfortunately for you, it’s not your country, so, tough luck.
I would be interested in debating the “majority opinion” aspect of your post, but you are arguing there in bad faith, so it would be a distraction.
My argument certainly does not assume you consider your country’s law & morals to be superior; it assumes you think YOUR moral attitude superior. It’s also very telling you say that you consider some of your place’s “social norms to be wrong.”
As for Malaysia. Tough. Luck. It’s their country, they can do whatever they like. Their morality is as valid as yours.
Correct. Law is not the same as morality. YOUR moral worldview, disagreeing with THEIR LAW, isn’t relevant here.
If you want to get on your soapbox, you’d do well to get well acquainted with Malaysian morality, to get the general populations’ consensus on homosexuality.
Unfortunately for your worldview, THAT IS THE LAW OF THAT COUNTRY. Their culture of morality is as valid as yours.
Wearing symbols that openly defy that law? You’ll get what you get.
You’ve consistently dribbled and ranted about how women are evil.
You are, in a word, tedious.