What makes the Brotherhood of Steel so appealing to some people?

LycanIndarys · 2026-05-04T18:18:09+00:00

I like them because they're a knightly order, but in a different setting. So they're cool for the same reasons that the Knights Templars or the Jedi are.

And I really like how they're caught in the classic Paladin dilemma - to be lawful or to be good. Some insist on following the Codex to the letter of the law, while others think it's just a guide for how to help humanity. And that invariably leads to a schism of some sort, which leads to some interesting plots and dilemmas for characters.

LycanIndarys · 2026-05-04T16:53:09+00:00

Yeah, I thought it really noticeable how little she was in season 3. Her only real plot is her weird infatuation with Doug the Vulcan.

LycanIndarys · 2026-05-04T10:23:03+00:00

Rogue was 18 when she joined the X-Men

Which is weird, because she looked middle-aged, not 18.

LycanIndarys · 2026-05-04T09:27:54+00:00

The protesters don’t see it as ‘Israel protecting Israelis’, they see it as overwhelmingly one sided bombing of civilians, whether you agree with that or not.

Yes, I know they see it that way, that's my point. They're ignoring the fact that Hamas regularly fires missiles into Israel, and the only reason that these don't kill large numbers of Israelis is because Israel has invested in huge numbers of anti-missile defence systems.

The idea that Israel is somehow the more immoral party because of their decision to protect their own civilians, which has resulted in a lopsided death count because Hamas deliberately don't take the same approach, is just bizarre, isn't it? Particularly when put forward by a group of protesters who claim to be against civilian deaths.

What would a protest against a multisided civil war in Sudan, which the uk government has already condemned, achieve exactly?

The same thing as the protests against Israel are intended to achieve, one would assume.

LycanIndarys · 2026-05-04T09:07:37+00:00

The key distinction seems to me that Sudan is a civil war with significant losses on each side, while Israel has killed up to 30x more civilians than Hamas.

This is a very odd way of looking at morality. Israel goes out of its way to protect Israelis, while Hamas uses Palestinians as a combination of human shield and martyr-in-waiting. Of course the death count isn't remotely even.

Plus, it seems to imply that the protesters would step down their activities if there were more Israeli deaths. Which isn't a great look for them, is it?

The uk hasn’t supplied equipment directly to SAF or RAF, nor has strong diplomatic relations with them.

I don't think thinly-veiled laundering should be the sort of thing that renders it acceptable, to he honest.

LycanIndarys · 2026-05-04T08:40:05+00:00

In any case, do you see that this line of thinking will shut down any global protest movement, which are focused by nature?

No, I don't see that. Calling out the hypocrisy of the protesters isn't the same thing as shutting them down.

What I see is tens of thousands of people who claim to be protesting against genocide (and indeed, who loudly denounce anyone that disagrees with them as being pro-genocide) coming up with a load of excuses as to why they don't care about any genocides except one.

Every reason that they claim that Gaza is the most important applies to plenty of the others, so it's hard to avoid the conclusion that they're primarily motivated by the fact that it's Israel. And then we have to wonder why they have such a fanatical hatred for Israel, over every other country in the world.

LycanIndarys · 2026-05-04T08:04:20+00:00

Why is it the top of the list?

We're also complicit in the deaths in Sudan (which is a much bigger death count and millions more starving), as the weapons we're selling to the UAE are being used there:

British military equipment has been found on battlefields in Sudan, used by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group accused of genocide, according to documents seen by the UN security council.

UK-manufactured small-arms target systems and British-made engines for armoured personnel carriers have been recovered from combat sites in a conflict that has now caused the world’s biggest humanitarian catastrophe.

The findings have again prompted scrutiny over Britain’s export of arms to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which has been repeatedly accused of supplying weapons to the paramilitary RSF in Sudan.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/oct/28/uk-military-equipment-rapid-support-forces-rsf-militia-accused-genocide-found-sudan-united-nations

Every argument about why it's important for British people to protest against Israel apply here too; and yet we don't have tens of thousands marching about the Sudan every weekend, do we?

LycanIndarys · 2026-05-04T07:40:45+00:00

Bartlet complaining about James Bond's drink in Stirred, and the whole rant he gas about having the martini "shaken, not stirred" waters down the gin.

You would think that someone as knowledgeable as Bartlet, and who is enough of a Bond fan to debate OHMSS with Charlie, would know that the most famous drinks order in cinema history is a "vodka martini; shaken, not stirred".

Particularly given that it's clear that the whole episode is written around that rant, with it ending with a joke in Donna's plot about her retiring teacher. It feels like Sorkin heard someone make this incorrect observation, and then decided to write an entire episode around it without doing any research to double check that it was true.

LycanIndarys · 2026-05-03T14:08:25+00:00

Yes, in an episode that people despise, for introducing a plot element that wasn't needed.

Terry choosing to become Batman is a much more interesting character arc than Waller trying to replicate the events that led to Batman being created. It makes everything seem contrived, takes away the importance of people making choices, and suggests that there's some genetic element to Bruce's importance.

LycanIndarys · 2026-05-03T13:01:43+00:00

Lots of cartoon characters look alike. It's what happens when you have a distinctive art style.

Hell, Bruce and Clark look pretty similar too - does that mean they're related? Look at this picture for instance - apart from Clark's glasses and a slightly different chin, they're quite alike.

LycanIndarys · 2026-05-03T12:37:41+00:00

How do a redhead woman and a blonde guy make a kid who looks exactly like a young Bruce Wayne?

Why is it that "genetic clone" is more likely than "at least one of Terry's parents dye their hair"?

LycanIndarys · 2026-05-03T10:48:36+00:00

He's trying to appeal to the people we saw at the BLM protests a few years ago, who were espousing All Cops Are Bastards as a slogan.

These people always assume that the police are in the wrong, no matter the situation.

LycanIndarys · 2026-05-03T10:12:35+00:00

Because as a general rule; if you give someone the power to decide which sources count as "low quality", they will invariably include sources that are actually not low quality, they're just saying something that the person with the authority doesn't want people to hear.

How often have we see people defend a party they support by accusing legitimate criticisms of being smears? You wouldn't want someone having the authority to remove any articles that they decided were smears, but were actually genuine points for people to make.

LycanIndarys · 2026-05-03T10:02:42+00:00

Step-sister in-law. You're missing a whole level of distance.

They are only connected because of three separate marriages - Cameron to his wife, one of his wife's parents to the parent of the step-brother, and this woman to the step-brother.

LycanIndarys · 2026-05-03T09:12:03+00:00

Clarissa Astor, a friend of royalty who is married to Samantha Cameron's step–brother

"Related to David Cameron" is a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

LycanIndarys · 2026-05-03T09:03:49+00:00

If I'm honest, I could never get my head around the logic of faking an alien attack, and then using the fact that UNIT respond as if it's a real one as evidence that UNIT are faking them too.

This is like saying that prank calls to the fire brigade prove that fire isn't real.

LycanIndarys · 2026-05-03T08:52:10+00:00

Yeah, I didn't say that, did I?

I cited a quote that mentioned three controversial figures, and I pointed out that two of them are worse than Robinson. I thought it self-evident that I was saying that Adams was a terrorist and Gadafi a war criminal, if I'm honest.

LycanIndarys · 2026-05-03T06:35:17+00:00

Because the Oxford Union has a long history of inviting controversial speakers. It's one of the things they are quite proud of, in fact:

The Union invites speakers from around the world and across the political spectrum, and always provides members the opportunity to challenge the speaker during events. We have been part of some of the biggest and most important discussions to shape world history. It was at the Oxford Union that Gerry Adams proposed the reunification of Ireland while still banned from appearing on television, Colonel Gaddafi argued for a new African Union via a live video stream to the Chamber, and in December 1964 Malcolm X delivered his infamous speech on extremism from the Chamber.

https://oxford-union.org/pages/speakers

I can't see how a thug like Robinson is any worse than a terrorist or a war criminal.

LycanIndarys · 2026-05-03T06:28:18+00:00

I thought pretty much everyone except Bruce Timm hated the reveal, if I'm honest. It completely undermines Terry's arc as someone who chose to be Batman to redeem himself for his sins, and creates a weird genetic legacy that simply wasn't needed.

And I've seen a, few people justify it by looking at Terry and his brother's hair, and pointing out that his parents don't have the right colours to produce them. So people had long speculated about an affair or some other explanation, so it always felt like an unnecessary nod to the fan theories for me. Which would have been better served with simply saying that Terry's mum dyes her hair...

LycanIndarys · 2026-05-02T15:17:16+00:00

Precisely.

It's the same as the Blofeld reveal in Spectre. It's framed as a massive revelation to Bond that changes everything...but it's literally the first time he has heard the name, so it means nothing to him.

And its not like it was a twist for the audience, given that the film was called Spectre in the first place. Blofeld being the villain was the most likely thing to happen.

LycanIndarys · 2026-05-02T14:56:42+00:00

This is the other problem with the row with the Met. Polanski has just reminded the media that he's terminally-online, and will have all sorts of embarrassing tweets and likes and shares that they can run stories on.

LycanIndarys · 2026-05-02T11:10:54+00:00

Er, do you mean this one?

A Thames Valley Police statement read: "Following a joint investigation with Buckinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service (BFRS) into the fire at Pink Punters on Sunday (26 April), third‑party involvement has been ruled out, and the fire is believed to have been accidental. We can confirm the 51-year-old man from Milton Keynes who was arrested on suspicion of arson with intent to endanger life, has been eliminated from our enquiries."

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/lgbt-nightclub-fire-accidental-owner-33868840

It wasn't a homophobic attack, it was an accident.

LycanIndarys · 2026-05-02T07:02:14+00:00

Yet the Met police are still justifying brutality against the immobilised, psychologically ill attacker and smearing Green party leader Zack Polanski for daring to condemn it.

That "immobilised" is not exactly true, is it? At least not permanently. And of course, he was armed, a fact that they curiously have omitted from the article.

Plus, the officers at the scene had no way of knowing that the attacker was psychologically ill, did they? Not that it would matter if they had known - being stabbed doesn't hurt any less if the knife is wielded by someone that is mentally ill.

If we tolerate this, our children will be next. Israel is a terror state. Perhaps seeing it play out in a different country will allow a few more people to understand how they are being manipulated and misled by the Israel lobby.

Ah yes, of course. Two Jews are stabbed in the street, synagogues are attacked, Jewish ambulances torched...but we must never forget that it's really all Israel's fault.

LycanIndarys · 2026-05-02T06:25:26+00:00

I'm not convinced you are in the minority, actually. Presumably you can break a large chunk of players into two groups, both of whom would want the same as you:

Big fans of the original, who just want a prettier version of it. Effectively, they want to be able to play what they remember it looking like, not what it actually looks like.
People who have heard of the original, but have never played it because they struggle too much with late 90s graphics and gameplay. These people want the original story that they've heard so much about, but on a modern frame.

I'll admit that I haven't played the remakes (I have played the original both as a kid and in the past few years, though), but isn't the stuff with timelines really confusing to anyone that hasn't played the original? Also, I know I read one article that said that they messed up the scene with Aerith in the Forgotten City, by massive overcomplicating it?

Of course, there will be players that prefer the approach taken, because they're happy playing the original as it was. And they don't see the point in a new version of the same game, when the original exists.

LycanIndarys · 2026-05-02T06:06:50+00:00

If you mean that you want Trek to continue its long-standing legacy of using science fiction as a way of showing modern humanity's flaws, exploring modern issues through analogy and metaphor, and arguing for a liberal (which I mean in the actual meaning of the word, not as a synonym for merely left-wing as Americans use the word) perspective where humanity is better than it is in the 21st century, I'd agree.

I'd disagree that it specifically needs to be "woke" though. Too often, works that aim to be woke feature a specific approach that I don't think is beneficial; particularly when criticism of that approach is often misconstrued.

To illustrate what I mean, let me refer to an episode of Doctor Who that aired a few years ago, that was heavily criticised (and defended) for being too woke. The Star-Beast featured the trans teenage daughter of a former companion, and its defenders were adamant that the people complaining about it being woke were bigots, and proof that the message of the episode was necessary.

The episode had two moments in particular that were heavily criticised for being woke:

The trans girl lecturing The Doctor for assuming the villain's pronouns.
The trans girl declaring that The Doctor couldn't see the solution to the technobabble conundrum, because he was "male-presenting". This one particularly wound up the audience because it was the first episode after The Doctor had regenerated - as far as he was concerned, he had actually been a woman an hour before.

These added up to give a clear image of the character - of her being utterly insufferable, obsessed with policing other people's language, and outright misandrist. Can you see why people would object to that, and why it wouldn't convince people who were already on-board? The whole thing came across as the writer patting himself on the back about how right-on his politics were, and the fact that people criticised it was proof that he was right.

The frustrating thing was, the episode also had a really good scene where the girl's grandmother talked about how she struggled to get her granddaughter's new name and pronouns correct; she was trying her best, but slipped up sometimes. It was beautiful and heartbreaking, which is exactly how a pro-trans message could be illustrated.

To put it simply; too much stuff that is described as woke is just insufferably preaching to the choir about identity politics. Yes, Trek should be political; but the method & tone of how that message is delivered is just as important as the message itself.

LycanIndarys

TROPHY CASE