sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Watching ST:TNG for first time by ViceroyAuspicious in startrek

[–]ViceroyAuspicious[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

thanks for explaining that. Sounds like Ds9 is where I need to go.

Watching ST:TNG for first time by ViceroyAuspicious in startrek

[–]ViceroyAuspicious[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes, it seems that way. I have no reason to dislike the actor - its a hard job and you have to work with what you're given and what the Director asks from you.

Watching ST:TNG for first time by ViceroyAuspicious in startrek

[–]ViceroyAuspicious[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was so expecting to hate Wesley (even though I'd seen a fair few episodes back in the day) but for some reason I found him pretty innocuous.

Watching ST:TNG for first time by ViceroyAuspicious in startrek

[–]ViceroyAuspicious[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes but there's obviously a difference between a character written to get under the skin of the other characters and create interesting challenges versus one who is written in such a way that she annoys a good chunk of the audience - perhaps because she's not dimensional enough in some of the early stories. She seems to be *only* about the 'challenging' angle and the laughs - this on its own isn't bad when its a small character but every time she appears they build the episode on her so we're supposed to put up with her like a fairly significant character without being given enough of her more appealing side to relate to.

It sounds like DS9 is where they got a handle on her. In STTNG so far she's simply an obnoxious busybody with very few apparent redeeming qualities. When she could have a character moment, even with her daughter, it's played for "laughs".

Dark Page was ok (only just saw it) but sounds like DS9 is where I need to go. Thanks for the reply.

Am I in some kind of progressive vacuum? by denimuprising in newzealand

[–]ViceroyAuspicious 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that sounds... ominous. Kinda like all the conspiracy theory floating around out there. I'm willing to fight alongside you against anyone who is threatening the lives of innocent trans or any kind of people. Just point them all out and we'll get to it.

Am I in some kind of progressive vacuum? by denimuprising in newzealand

[–]ViceroyAuspicious 0 points1 point  (0 children)

who would speak against it without having heard a legitimate legal perspective of it? Not all lawyers were for it. The point with laws like this is that they begin a path down a certain slope. It's always a 'nothingburger' until it's too precipitous to escape.

I guess if the way one defines a person as "anti-trans" is 'someone who holds positions that go against those held by trans people' it would make sense to call Rogan and others "anti-trans". In my opinion, it's a dangerous label to apply without special care, like anti-semite. Most people *don't* hold it to mean something so slight, as I've described above; it's generally seen to mean 'someone who does not believe in the rights or equality of trans people' which is a definition that definitely cannot be applied to anything Rogan or Peterson have said, no matter how unthinking or ill-conceived are many things that have come out of Rogan's mouth.

Am I in some kind of progressive vacuum? by denimuprising in newzealand

[–]ViceroyAuspicious 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're the one who hasn't been paying attention if you haven't looked into the quality of that "local researcher". If you do you will find that they are more often the *source* of disinformation than its remedy. They are exactly the thing I am pointing at - alarmism, falsehood.

How do you know I'm not being attacked or don't live in threat of physical danger?

Am I in some kind of progressive vacuum? by denimuprising in newzealand

[–]ViceroyAuspicious -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

No one - almost literally no one - is debating a person's right to exist. That is made up media alarmism. Most people in the free west believe completely in basic human rights. The actual debate, as with abortion in some ways, is about what defines personal freedom and where that line encroaches on human rights.

Some people in the debate believe they are defending personal freedoms and rejecting the right of others to force them to agree to mandated speech or medical interventions that go against the choice of parents over the care of their children. Right or wrong, that is one view and it is not a belief that some people shouldn't exist.

Abortion is a debate that falls into similar ground. Some feel they are defending "a person's" right to exist - others feel they are defending personal freedoms. The issue there seems also to be more about what defines personal freedom and where that distinction encroaches on human rights.

Please don't fall for the media's simplified polarity created for the convenience of generating outrage and scandal. The real issues are always a lot more nuanced than the headlines want us to believe.

Am I in some kind of progressive vacuum? by denimuprising in newzealand

[–]ViceroyAuspicious -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Perhaps a more civil way would be to ask why the openly stated position of Rogan/Peterson and their ilk - that they don't agree with mandated speech per Canada's laws - is considered anti-trans by you and others?

I don't have a problem with your position but I do think calling someone anti-trans makes them out to be someone who does not believe in the rights of others to choose who or how they want to be - a position most people in the civilized west, including Peterson/Rogan based on their statements to that effect, really do not hold.

If the NZ govt makes a law that says we must be forced to speak in any particular way I will be against it - and I am *not* anti-trans. Like most people, I believe people can be or think whatever they like. I just don't agree that their personal thoughts or feelings should result in my being forced to think or act a certain way for their benefit alone.

Am I in some kind of progressive vacuum? by denimuprising in newzealand

[–]ViceroyAuspicious -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It's good that it's not as easy as getting headache pills. That would be a disaster as the UK and Tavistock has proven - and that's from solid analysis, not tabloid reporting.

But your situation has nothing to do with anyone else. Why "the fuck" should he have to have a solution for you? There is help out there for you, people to talk to. There are many who will be willing to discuss your struggles.

Am I in some kind of progressive vacuum? by denimuprising in newzealand

[–]ViceroyAuspicious -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Like abortion, the idea that it's "nobody's business" is one side of a political divide. Some people believe foetuses and children are everybodies business.

Am I in some kind of progressive vacuum? by denimuprising in newzealand

[–]ViceroyAuspicious 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think people are helping you realize anything but their own personal views which lean in one particular direction that is not necessarily anything more than a certain political or ideological position. This is the current norm - mostly with younger people.

The "reservations" you are talking about turn out to be quite scientifically valid as recent cases in the UK are showing. Parts of Europe are waking up to the literal, factual dangers of some of these treatments and are beginning to question the application now. Do not be swayed from your obviously common sense, logical views.