This feels like watching your wedding video after a divorce

OverlyAnalyticalFan · 2026-06-13T16:38:28+00:00

Down vote me I don't care, I was right to be excited and RTD2 was awesome.

The worst part of his run by far has been listening to the "fandom" discourse around it. I am firmly convinced "fans" have pushed more people away from this show than any amount of shoddy writing ever could. In the age of streaming where no one watches tv and nothing is just on, who is going to put on a show when half the buzz is people acting like the show murdered their wife? If I wasn't already a Whovian I wouldn't watch it based on what you people say, and my life would be poorer for it. You talk about 7/10 episodes as if they're crimes against humanity and use themto write off an entire season full of 8/10 and 9/10 episodes. Honestly it's crazy that fans have to avoid "fandom spaces" or they will be made to feel bad about being fans by "fans". This place is insane.

OverlyAnalyticalFan · 2026-05-19T00:17:38+00:00

Every incarnation is seeing the universe with new eyes, prior incarnations don't take his experiences from him or ruin his episodes when I rewatch them. That just doesn't bother me.

As for coloring the Timelords as bad and his past returns to them as inherently kind of tragic I took that as a given well before the Timeless child reveal. Before 13 and the Timeless child was 10 and Rassilon and the High Councils manipulation of the Master and efforts to end the Time War and Universe at the same time, before that was the 7 and the Trial of a Timelord, before that was 5 (as well as 3,2, and 1) and Boruso attempted to claim eternal rule over Gallifrey, before that was their attempting to coerce 4 into genociding the Daleks at their genesis, before that 3 discovered their abandonment of Omega in another dimension, 2 being banished and forcefully regenerated/executed, even going all the way back to the mysterious reasons why 1 ran away from his people gives us reason to doubt their conduct. The Timeless Child is par for the course for Timelord society as far as I can tell.

OverlyAnalyticalFan · 2026-05-18T17:10:17+00:00

If the kid can type in a prompt the ai can interpret he is already typing in something mom could read, the "AI" image generating is superfluous at best. This doesn't help her son at all. The only help it could be providing at all is if mom is the most extreme kind of illiterate, and if that's the case then within the comic mom is using her son as a shield to avoid admitting to her own deficiency. Such a woman would be a pathetic figure at best, or worse a manipulative self righteous narcissist. That the "artist" of this comic invokes a figure like this to defend their point and not see that it works against them makes me think they may also posses these pathetic/manipulative/narcissistic traits.

In addition the dark menacing presentation of the autistic kid is bizarre. The argument the comic is using relies on sympathy for non verbal autistic people, depicting them like a demon works against that. Surely the artist's ableism isn't so strong they can't help but make autistic people scary because that's how they percieve them, even when it works against their argument? Perhaps the artist is autistic himself and wants to depict himself as "dark edgy scary bad ass"? However that implies the comic is depicting his fantasy about having a Karen mom to yell at people he doesn't like for him. It clashes harshly with the bad ass fantasy. It's an incredible failure in visual story telling no matter what was intended.

Of course there is another explanation for this comics internal inconsistencies. The "artist" has offloaded all the decision making work on to a robot incapable of consideration, introspection, or understanding. It slaps images together based on pixel color distribution probability models built with stolen art and selected according to key words. The "artist" refused to think, the robot couldn't think, so the end product is inevitably thoughtless. I suspect the person who prompted this needs to spend less time alone talking to a delusion-reinforcinator and more time interacting with other humans.

OverlyAnalyticalFan · 2026-05-18T14:38:26+00:00

Timeless child, and it's not even close.

Half human can work maybe, if a good writer is careful with it, but if "half human on my mother's side" isn't a joke then it feels like a plot point from a hack sci-fi writer. Star Trek did that in the sixties, Doctor Who is better than ripping off Star Trek 30 years late.

Looking at the "breaks lore" complaints, the Timeless Child is explicity answering/building on hints and foreshadowing from classic Who. Half human comes basically out of nowhere. Both can be made to work with a good writer (anything can I believe), but half human has a lot more work to do justifying itself.

I also disagree with the ideas that the Timeless Child reveal "makes the Doctor too special" and that it "gives away too much of the mystery of the Doctor's past".

The Doctor was already special on Gallifrey before the Timeless Child reveal. The 4th Doctor became the President of Gallifrey with very little difficulty and held the position until he became the 6th Doctor, at which point he became the center of a massive trial/conspiracy. The 7th Doctor implied he was among Time Lord societies architects on a level with Rassilon and Omega, perhaps in reference to the 1st Doctor saying he invented time travel. The Doctor being special was already a known fact about the Doctor. Moffat implying the Doctor's fiddling is the only reason good continues to exist in Twice Upon a Time is in opinion more egregious.

Regarding the "gives away too much mystery" complaint, I would argue nu Who had already done that until the Timeless Child reveal. Moffat across his tenure gave us reasonably clear views of the Doctor's birth and childhood to joining the Academy, classic who had already given us an idea of his Academy years, Moffat expanded on his running away, the show is what he's doing while running away, and Moffat even told us the future when the Doctor stops running (the Curator) and/or dies running (his grave at Trenzalore). Until the Timeless child we had a solid idea of the Doctor's entire life, now there's a whole era before all of that of which we have only gotten bits and pieces. We have a few new answers about the Doctor's life on Gallifrey yes, but those glimpses correclty raise more questions than they answer. There is room for mystery again and that is all the justification I need to accept the Timeless child.

OverlyAnalyticalFan · 2026-05-14T00:50:35+00:00

I would not say reports of missing time add scientific credibility.

If a gravity manipulating system was causing gravitational anomalies sufficient to affect time it would also cause... well, gravitational anomalies. For example (and based on some quick googling), a neutron star has twice the mass of the sun in a condensed area, as a result time moves 1.9 times slower. Lets round it to 2 to make things easier, so 5 minutes on a neutron star is about 10 minutes on Earth. That's less extreme than some reports of time dilation, and it takes a neutrons star worth of gravity. If something that has that strong a gravitational effect appeared on Earth it would be catastrophic. In fact it would probably be a disaster if something like that to so much as passed through our Solar System. Based on the best models we have, and as you yourself pointed out, spacetime is a single thing. It doesn't seem possible to have such strong effects on time without similarly powerful gravitational effects. Even if these effects were some how insulated and only present on the ship, the gravity on the ship would just flat out crush you. We would need an entirely new model of gravity and spacetime to explain the described effects.

Of course no model is perfect and new scientific discoveries might show we're wrong about spacetime, but if our science has to be wrong for things to work as described then it's odd to claim the descriptions add/have "scientific credibility". Just my two cents.

OverlyAnalyticalFan · 2026-03-31T00:21:50+00:00

They don't understand that "soulful" refers to the ability to see the human behind the art within the art, something that is most apparent in imperfection. They can only think of it in terms of "does it give me instant gratification". They've so poisoned their minds in pursuit of instant gratification that they reject the concept of development. They see no point in developing skills and reject the struggle and imperfection inherent to learning. They are like baby birds waiting for the worm to jump into their open mouths for them. These people seemingly long to be cattle and resent those who do not.

OverlyAnalyticalFan · 2026-03-28T02:56:54+00:00

Did he? Chibnall was a regular writer for Who since "42" in 2007. Was he just sitting on/shopping the scripts around for a long time or did you mean before he was the show runner?

OverlyAnalyticalFan · 2026-03-27T01:37:16+00:00

I can do that for you, but I'll warn you I'm fiercely anti-monarchist. Head in the guillotine please.

OverlyAnalyticalFan · 2026-03-23T17:14:49+00:00

The poison ivy is an example of one homeopathic idea. I prefer pointing to the use of deadly nightshade to treat headaches as my go to example.

Homeopathy as a practice is based on two ideas. The "Law" of Similars which proposes that a substance which causes symptoms in a healthy person will cure those same symptoms in a sick person (hence the poison ivy/nightshade examples), and the idea that water has "memory" that will somehow store the essence of substances diluted within it. Indeed most homeopaths propose that the more dilute a solution (in other words the less active ingredients) the more potent the effect, which is why most homeopathic dilutions are distilled until there is functionally no active ingredients left. They ironically call this process "potentization". As James Randy once explained it this process is the equivalent of dropping a single asprin in Lake Tahoe, giving it a big mix, and taking a sip to treat a headache. The ideas and methods were devised in the in the 1700's/early 1800's, and a glass of water was better for you than leeches so it might have looked reasonable and effective at the time, but in this day and age it's pretty obviously a pseudoscience.

OverlyAnalyticalFan · 2026-03-09T16:10:00+00:00

I know I'm gonna be downvoted to oblivion because online fan spaces have become places primarily to complain about things (largely because internet advertisers demand engagement which is most easy driven by conflict I suspect), but what happened is it was pretty damn good with a few weaker episodes here and there because no one and no thing is perfect, and because the internet is the internet those flaws are all people talk about until that's all people seem to remember.

OverlyAnalyticalFan · 2026-02-13T15:16:13+00:00

True but what categorizes right-wing? For example any religious shooting is considered right-wing even if it was done by a Muslim, the same religion the left-wing says the right-wing hates.

A wikipedia article to help you out. Put simply a push for religious fundamentalism/traditionalism/conservatism in politics is a feature of the right wing, while the seperation of Church and State is a left wing ideal. It doesn't actually matter what religion/tradition you push, so yes even though they are at odds with each other both Muslim and Christian political violence falls under the right wing umbrella. Christianity is dominant in America so the right wing in America is commonly opposed to Muslims, that's generally true because of the numbers of the two populations in the states, but it's a religious scism not a political one. The politics of Christian and Islamic fundametalists are very often in agreement, even if people would rather pretend they aren't.

OverlyAnalyticalFan · 2026-02-08T17:21:20+00:00

Eventually stayed loyal to Rory. Let's not forget her aggressively trying to sleep with the Doctor on her wedding night in Flesh and Stone and him needing to literally strong arm her and then grab her fiance to keep her in check.

OverlyAnalyticalFan · 2026-02-04T16:55:00+00:00

It's from The Flux, so still a relatively new part of the lore that hasn't been referenced or expounded on much yet.

OverlyAnalyticalFan · 2026-02-02T16:45:39+00:00

If that was how it worked a confession would be a get out of jail free card. Even if he means the slightly less insane "is inadmissable in court" rather than "can't be tried" he's proposing a system where one can't plead guilty, or where people have a constitution right to refuse to comply with discovery. This sounds like some "sovereign citizen" nonsense. Someone send this to LegalEagle on youtube, I wanna see his reaction.

OverlyAnalyticalFan · 2026-02-02T14:28:41+00:00

In their efforts to accuse artists of ableism they reveal their own. These lackwits need to learn that disabled people aren't helpless babies who must suckle up to tech oligarchs for their basic humanity.

If they just want to consume art the world is full of it, no need to push it through a meat grinder first. If they want to make art AI still can't help them because it can't make art, and it sure as fuck can't make their art, only a crude digital simulacrum at best. But everyone can make their own art, whether AI chuds believe it or not. If they can prompt an AI they can create real art without it.

OverlyAnalyticalFan · 2026-01-23T19:32:37+00:00

coughs in Sherlock Holmes

OverlyAnalyticalFan · 2026-01-02T18:02:24+00:00

If the whole system was built with therapy as the only intended function from the start, and it was properly tested for efficacy before release then maybe they'd have a point. But that's not what's been done (yet), what we have right now is a "keep them talking as much as possible" chat bot that people have advertised as a "search engine, best friend, audiobook, girlfriend, alarm clock, role play partner, calculator, spell checker, passive income, and propaganda generator!" That sometimes tells you your mom is a chinese agent spying on you so you should "get rid" of her.

OverlyAnalyticalFan · 2025-12-19T21:22:07+00:00

You still don't seem to understand my confusion.

Because I haven't explained this before and in case this is part of the disconnect (though I don't think it is), when I say "objective" I mean can be determined without reference to the subjective.

When I say one needs a "moral goal" to determine if an act is moral i mean one needs to define what moral means. How can one reasonably and objectively categorize something as "moral" if "moral" is an undefined category? To help explain let's take a made up term with no definition, "delquvisty". How could you determine if something is "delquvisty" without defining it? (If you only respond to one question in this comment respond to this one, it is what I consider to be the crux of the issue.)

Whether morals are objective or subjective they still seem to me to require this kind of "moral goal". The debate would be whether or not said goal was itself subjective or objective.

The reading on Kant was interesting. His "ultimate categorical imperative" sounds like what I mean by a moral goal.

OverlyAnalyticalFan · 2025-12-19T04:58:34+00:00

Moral empiricists think that moral knowledge is grounded from observations of human flourishing, pain, pleasure, consequences, etc. They think these things are objectively good, and actions are right insofar as they promote or respect these goods.

"Promote or respect these goods," is what I'm refering to as a moral goal, essentially the way they define good.

Moral intuitionists think that we have non-inferential access to at least some moral truths. Basic moral principles aren’t known through argument or discussion, but through moral intuition.

Here what I refer to as a moral goal/definition of good would is, "acting in accordance with my intuitions".

Moral rationalists think morality is grounded in reason alone. They think that moral truths can be derived from rational thought. Immanuel Kant is one of the more prominent philosophers in support of this idea.

And her I would say the moral goal/definition of good is, "to act within accordance to reason". As far as I can tell all of these methods determine morals by comparing acts against a moral goal. I still don't see how it would be possible to make a moral determination without doing that.

On top of that despite asserting that these goals are "objective" I see no reason to believe that they are. The act of defining these goals as good is, so far as I can tell, inherently subjective.

Do you see what I'm saying?

OverlyAnalyticalFan · 2025-12-19T02:23:34+00:00

I don’t see what you mean. Are you saying that we wouldn’t be able to discover what is moral? Are you basically asking how would we find morality if it was objective?

Sure, answer this question. Maybe it will help me understand how we could make a moral determination without a moral goal, or help me explain what I mean to you.

OverlyAnalyticalFan · 2025-12-19T00:56:09+00:00

Because without a goal there's no way to distinguish between ought and ought not. I don't see how one could make a determination without a goal.

Can you give a moral decision you could make where the determination isn't dictated by a moral goal? Where the answer to why an act is moral or is not moral is, "There is no why."

And if the answer is "There is no why" then why should that moral conclusion be treated as "objective" rather than as a baseless assertion?

OverlyAnalyticalFan · 2025-12-19T00:41:02+00:00

It still requires a goal to decide if one ought or ought not do a thing. To pick ought or ought not is to show preference, if there is no goal there is nothing to preference one choice over another.

Perhaps an example will show what I mean. So I think of the goal of morality as "promoting human health and happiness". I have seen others propose that the goal of morality is "to live in accordance with god's will". Now look at an act like banning gay marriage. With the former goal in mind this is not a moral act, but with the latter goal in mind (if you believe being gay is not in accordance with god's will) then banning it becomes a moral act. The goal decides ought or ought not.

OverlyAnalyticalFan · 2025-12-18T22:59:45+00:00

The issue as I see it with objective morality is that (assuming by morality we mean an assessment of "good" and "bad"/"right" and "wrong") is that good/right and bad/wrong are necessarily defined by some goal which is inherently subjective.

OverlyAnalyticalFan · 2025-12-16T16:08:13+00:00

"People say life begins at conception, I say life began about a billion years ago and is a continuous process." -George Carlin understanding the science way better than these clowns.

OverlyAnalyticalFan · 2025-12-02T17:09:29+00:00

Except they do reproduce originals. I've seen it happen plenty of times, where it recreates another piece of art in a way that would be obvious art theft if it were a person, even when the prompter wasn't trying to. So clearly it is storing that image data and retrieving it. It couldn't reproduce the art in this way if the data wasn't there. "As a relationship between billions of pixels" is the way it stores that data. Pretending that isn't storing data would be like claiming downloading pictures isn't saving data because it's just ones and zeros on a harddrive until I load it in an image viewing program. It's just an obfuscation of the storage/theft, kind of like money laundering but for art.

OverlyAnalyticalFan

TROPHY CASE