TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 249

Thread: Doctor Whoessa: Time Lady

  1. #126
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2002
    The more I learn of Jodie Whittaker, the more I wonder what her Doctor is going to be like. I've seen clips of her work in Broadchurch and a clip of her in Antigone. I've seen a couple of interviews of her that remind me a bit of the way Matt Smith played the Doctor, something about her mannerisms and expressions. Her personality isn't really what I expected, but it actually relieves some of my concerns about her taking on the role.

    https://youtu.be/s_iIUDq6JIE

    https://youtu.be/6GDbPVXcq-4
    Last edited by Nuth; 21st Jul 2017 at 04:16.

  2. #127
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolya View Post
    Maybe if you didn't see yourself in a final stand against political correctness you would have noticed that we discussed if a female lead conflicts with the fiction and lo and behold - it doesn't, because the doctor is a reincarnating alien. And besides a general aversion to change (always has been, always will be) there hasn't been made any point that speaks against it.
    Change is welcome within a virtual universe when it doesn't corrupt canon. The problem isn't change itself, it's corruptive change.

    There have been several people, including myself, who have made clear, logical points, that have defined why a retconned gender-swap is poor choice for the Dr. Who IP, which has nothing to do with your small-minded "anti-woman" fabrication that you irrationally project onto other people. The fact that you're having difficulty understanding that these logical points exist on this thread only speaks to your clouded state of mind, and your struggle with objective reality.

    To further elaborate on my previous point...

    The corruption of canon unavoidably creates incongruity, which in turn weakens the cohesion of that universe. The variance of cohesion in a universe has a broadband effect upon the conscious and unconscious mind of one passively experiencing or interacting with it. The less cohesion, the weaker the connection is between the universe and the participant, and the less invested they become relative to their own predisposition to certain experiences.

    This is how the corruption of canon devalues the IP. This unfortunate consequence usually happens due to short-term thinking, along with the inability to comprehend high-level concepts that dynamically alter the value of the IP, itself.

  3. #128
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2014
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    Gotta love Spoony. Shame he stopped doing videos.
    Sadly he seems to have devolved into a Twitter troll, yet he still makes $648 a month from his Patreon subscribers. Wish I could be an asshole on Twitter and be paid for it.

  4. #129
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: Cologne
    Quote Originally Posted by Vae View Post
    Change is welcome within a virtual universe when it doesn't corrupt canon. The problem isn't change itself, it's corruptive change.

    There have been several people, including myself, who have made clear, logical points, that have defined why a retconned gender-swap is poor choice for the Dr. Who IP, which has nothing to do with your small-minded "anti-woman" fabrication that you irrationally project onto other people. The fact that you're having difficulty understanding that these logical points exist on this thread only speaks to your clouded state of mind, and your struggle with objective reality.

    To further elaborate on my previous point...

    The corruption of canon unavoidably creates incongruity, which in turn weakens the cohesion of that universe. The variance of cohesion in a universe has a broadband effect upon the conscious and unconscious mind of one passively experiencing or interacting with it. The less cohesion, the weaker the connection is between the universe and the participant, and the less invested they become relative to their own predisposition to certain experiences.

    This is how the corruption of canon devalues the IP. This unfortunate consequence usually happens due to short-term thinking, along with the inability to comprehend high-level concepts that dynamically alter the value of the IP, itself.
    I'm not sure if you really believe you made a single logical point in that pseudo-intellectual hogwash, or if you think you can bullshit your way out of this.

  5. #130
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Don't worry, Kolya...I won't waste my time trying to educate you any further on this matter. It has become quite clear where your limitations lie.

    If it makes you feel any better, you can still call me a sexist...or whatever else rings your bell...

  6. #131
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: Cologne
    My limitations? Oh jeez, you really want the fisking, don't you? Right, let's go.

    The corruption of canon unavoidably creates incongruity,
    This presumes there is a corruption which is exactly the point you're trying to prove.

    which in turn weakens the cohesion of that universe
    How is the cohesion weakened? You're simply stating it as a fact, but that doesn't make it so.

    The variance of cohesion in a universe has a broadband effect upon the conscious and unconscious mind of one passively experiencing or interacting with it. The less cohesion, the weaker the connection is between the universe and the participant, and the less invested they become relative to their own predisposition to certain experiences.
    Ah. So people don't like when a story contradicts itself. Woah. Mind blown. You still haven't shown, how that happens, but let's continue.

    This is how the corruption of canon devalues the IP.
    Wait a minute. Did I miss something here? You never said how that happens! You just elaborated on your own presumptions.

    This unfortunate consequence usually happens due to short-term thinking, along with the inability to comprehend high-level concepts that dynamically alter the value of the IP, itself.
    More a "high level" way of calling everyone stupid who doesn't agree with you.

    So again, Mr Smartypants, where is your fucking point?

  7. #132
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Ireland
    Was it ever stated anywhere that time lords couldn't change their sex during regeneration?
    I don't see how it's a "corruption of canon" if it's not contradicting or retconning something from the previous canon.

    Since people were mentioning Space Marines: in canon, all Space Marines must be male due to Reasons (albeit not good reasons, but it has been stated in canon.)
    If the Imperium discovered and pursued a way to make female Space Marines, that would be fine within the canon (though odd, considering how new science is heresy and how resistant to change the Imperium is.)
    On the other hand, if they randomly decided that half of the original Space Marine chapters were women and always had been, then that would be a "corruption of canon" as you put it, because it's changing already-established facts rather than adding new ones.
    (... Not that Games Workshop don't love to retcon things in random ways. Just look at Ollanius Pius.)

    Isn't the Doctor Who case the first scenario and not the second?

  8. #133
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2008
    Quote Originally Posted by Nuth View Post
    The more I learn of Jodie Whittaker [...]

    https://youtu.be/s_iIUDq6JIE
    Ohhhhh, it's her. I binged on Black Mirror a few months back, and she was good.

  9. #134
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales
    A couple of doctors have now joined in your discussion.

    Two ex-Time Lords have had a war of words over Jodie Whittaker being cast as TV's first female Doctor.
    Peter Davison, who played the Doctor from 1981 to 1984, said he "liked the idea" of a male Doctor and that he felt "a bit sad" the character might no longer be "a role model for boys".
    His comments were promptly dubbed "rubbish" by his successor Colin Baker. "You don't have to be of a gender to be a role model," said the actor, who portrayed the Doctor from 1984 to 1986.

  10. #135
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    olol English people tawk funneh.

  11. #136
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    I think the problem is that many of the former Doctors are scared to speak their mind on the matter. When I spoke my mind on the matter I was told soon after that:

    "You came out of a pussy and while you may never get close to another, that should be enough to show some respect."

    So you can imagine the kind of response one of them would receive if they spoke out against it. A strange world we live in these days.

  12. #137
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    ICEMANN GON GET BEAT!

  13. #138
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: Cologne
    As I told you in that post and again after, this wasn't aimed at you specifically, but at the group of people whose voice you had joined. And while my wording after a few beer was out of line, I stand by the point that women deserve not to be rejected because of their gender.
    That being said, I really wish to stay on friendly terms with you, icemann.

  14. #139
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Likewise. Whilst I did use the line you used, I was just making a general point.

    I've seen similar reactions toward those opposed in other forums. For example at the Gallifreybase forums. So it's certainly not just isolated to here. Though over there the moderators have been deleting some of the posts of some of the people who were in the "opposed" camp which is a bit odd.

    Anyways, I've made the main points I wanted to make. Everyone is welcome to their opinions, as I am with mine.

  15. #140
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2003
    Location: Location, Location
    That does seem to be the boilerplate reaction whenever there's pushback from a man on a gender politics issue; immediately insult his sexual prospects, or call him a crybaby. It's an ultimately self-defeating tactic, since it doesn't address his points to his satisfaction, and it can only serve to further polarize him against you.

    Don't drive the moderates out of the discussion. You may herd more people into the opposing camp than you're prepared to deal with. This is a lesson we should have learned last year.
    Last edited by Trance; 22nd Jul 2017 at 07:43.

  16. #141
    Quote Originally Posted by Vae View Post
    Change is welcome within a virtual universe when it doesn't corrupt canon. The problem isn't change itself, it's corruptive change.

    There have been several people, including myself, who have made clear, logical points, that have defined why a retconned gender-swap is poor choice for the Dr. Who IP, which has nothing to do with your small-minded "anti-woman" fabrication that you irrationally project onto other people. The fact that you're having difficulty understanding that these logical points exist on this thread only speaks to your clouded state of mind, and your struggle with objective reality.
    To be fair, a lot of the show's direction over the past few years has consisted of blow-hard, pretentious retcons. It doesn't always distract from some excellent intra-episode plots and writing but the meta has been complete shit for awhile. They ALMOST had something extremely interested with the arc about "The Silence" but managed to completely fuck up the execution and turn it into an almost cringe-worthy resolution.

    That does seem to be the boilerplate reaction whenever there's pushback from a man on a gender politics issue; immediately insult his sexual prospects, or call him a crybaby. It's an ultimately self-defeating tactic, since it doesn't address his points to his satisfaction, and it can only serve to further polarize him against you.

    Don't drive the moderates out of the discussion. You may herd more people into the opposing camp than you're prepared to deal with. This is a lesson we should have learned last year.
    And that's.....kind of what led to the whole Gamergate thing. People would probably have forgotten about it very quickly if it wasn't for things like a gaming magazine editor saying that Gamers were "losers who need to be bullied into submission".

    Still I'm impressed by how many people almost reflexively attack and hate any positive expression of masculinity or any portrayal of males that doesn't shame masculinity. Personally I still think it's fucking stupid and self defeating: trying to turn everyone into effeminate, "nice guy", males is how you get MORE people like Elliot Rogers who start building up a quiet hatred for women that eventually explodes into violence or assault.

    In fact I'd go so far as to say that a huge portion of the "misogony" that currently exists is because of guys who were raised by women or to behave like women (e.g. that their masculinity is somehow inherently bad). Sure it makes you feel great growing up because those environments are dominated by female authority figures who like it when you act that way. However that upbringing generally results in a lack of real life emotional intelligence so it just leads to you getting shit on constantly by more competitive, aggressive personality types...to say nothing of how those guys have tend to experience the worst side of women regularly. Eventually the pendulum swings back violently the other direction and it doesn't always stop in that healthy middle ground where a man neither pedestalizes nor hates women.

    Sure it feels good to just bash them as "hating women", and "misogynists". It's a far more productive discussion to ask WHY they became that way. That might give some more accurate insight into why there is now starting to be a backlash against constant female empowerment.
    Last edited by Tony_Tarantula; 23rd Jul 2017 at 14:47.

  17. #142
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2014
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    And that's.....kind of what led to the whole Gamergate thing. People would probably have forgotten about it very quickly if it wasn't for things like a gaming magazine editor saying that Gamers were "losers who need to be bullied into submission".
    Where was this? I actually never saw the article that set off the whole thing.

  18. #143
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    There was no such thing as a moderate center during the Gamersgate fiasco. It started out with some guy smearing his ex-girlfriend on the internet, then immediately went to everyone doxing and death threating each other from there. Stupidest goddamn thing I've ever seen in my entire life.

  19. #144
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula
    trying to turn everyone into effeminate, "nice guy", males is how you get MORE people like Elliot Rogers who start building up a quiet hatred for women that eventually explodes into violence or assault.
    Just saw this. It's, once again, another massive misrepresentation by Mr. Tony Tarantula.

    Elliot Rogers was never shamed about being "male", or "masculine", or whatever other victimization tripe you want to toss up. He was heavily involved with Pick Up Groups, which does tend to be the very opposite of the very things you're claiming, mostly celebrating their masculinity by picking up barflies and club chicks. Unless you're talking about the extreme fringes of that scene, where things start getting a little, for lack of a better word, rapey (which Rogers wasn't involved in), they're a pretty harmless bunch.

    But it wasn't the PUG scene that lead to his eventual violent outburst. If anything, some of the people there tried steering him in the right direction. It's that he was a creepy little goon with more than his fair share of mental and emotional issues, took the fact that no one wanted to touch him with a 10 foot pole as being a problem endemic with women rather than himself, blamed them for all his ills and failings, and took things to their illogical conclusion.

    The fact you're using Rogers as a victim of feminism shows that, well, YOU'VE GOT A BIG AGENDA, TONY! CONFIRMATION BIAS! COGNITIVE DISSONANCE!
    Last edited by Renzatic; 23rd Jul 2017 at 17:14.

  20. #145
    Member
    Registered: May 1999
    Location: on the socio path
    Nah, Rogers was a victim of being the product of a WMAF couple, which isn't gender related but racial, a whole different ballpark of issues. Essentially these guys come out still looking Asian enough that the father can't relate to him and his mother resents him, or whatever. Plus white girls generally don't go for the Asian guy, and the Asian girl would rather have a full Asian guy. So they have very few prospects unless they are a white hot ball of confidence. Read r/hapas for how psychologically fucked up and self-hating these guy are, and how they steamroll all and any WMAF couples as losers.

  21. #146
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    I have an uncle who's the product of a WMAF relationship. He looks sorta like Bruce Lee, especially in his younger years, but has a really thick southern accent. Always calls me "maayyyaattthheewww".

    It's a really weird combination, let me tell you.

  22. #147
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2003
    Location: Location, Location
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Just saw this. It's, once again, another massive misrepresentation by Mr. Tony Tarantula.

    Elliot Rogers was never shamed about being "male", or "masculine", or whatever other victimization tripe you want to toss up. He was heavily involved with Pick Up Groups, which does tend to be the very opposite of the very things you're claiming, mostly celebrating their masculinity by picking up barflies and club chicks. Unless you're talking about the extreme fringes of that scene, where things start getting a little, for lack of a better word, rapey (which Rogers wasn't involved in), they're a pretty harmless bunch.
    Pick-up Artists, actually, Renz. "Pick-up group" has to do with video games.

    Unsurprisingly, Tony does frequent the RooshV forum, which is a forum founded by a PUA, for PUAs. If you want to get a good look at what the opposite end of the spectrum looks like in gender politics, go read some of the posts on that forum. They'll curl your nose hairs.

  23. #148
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Really, I think of that whole scene as a bunch of douchy guys trying their damnedest to be as douchy as possible so they can pick up equally douchy women who love that douchy crap. They end up producing children who can crush beer cans on their foreheads at the age of 3.

    I think of the opposite end of the social spectrum as being better represented by the Red Pill bunch.

    Oh, and I'm pretty sure Mayonnaise101 might be Tony.

    edit: RooseV would fall on in that more abjectly "rapey" end of the PUA scene I mentioned above. I don't consider them representative of them all.
    Last edited by Renzatic; 23rd Jul 2017 at 19:02.

  24. #149
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    The problem isn't change itself, it's corruptive change.
    Meaning change you don't like.

    Time Lords are "extraterrestrial". They predate humans but appear humanoid even though they are (according to incorruptible cannon) NOT human. Presumably a near immortal creature with access to time travel and bio-morphing technologies (allowing it to reduce it's normal compliment of hearts from TWO to ONE), would have little difficulty selecting between genders in its target species, unless you have some "clear, logical points" or citations from incorruptible cannon to rule out this possibility.

    The Doctor is a fugitive and, like all Time Lords, is able to conceal his identity by taking human form. Switching to a female sounds like a good tactic to throw off the chase.

    The question isn't why is this being done now but why wasn't it done sooner, baring "clear, logical points" or incorruptible cannon to the contrary.
    Last edited by Nicker; 23rd Jul 2017 at 19:26.

  25. #150
    It wasn't done sooner because back then, gender-swapping male characters into female ones wasn't considered necessary to advance feminism.

    I still think there's a right way and a wrong way to do this (you need to be logged into Facebook to see this picture):

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •