• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Supergirl - Season 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
There's good indifference
starsuperion said:
who doesn't care what you do in a bedroom
Click to expand...
and there's bad indifference
who could care less ... how or if you can buy a gun
Click to expand...
Some things are nobody's business and harm no one. Others are literally matters of life and death. Conservatives have a habit of getting these two categories reversed. And not caring about anything, as you seem to advocate, is not much better.
 
Kirk Prime said:
None of those are liberal issues. Not one. No conservative wants to wrongfully convict an innocent to death. No conservative favors domestic violence. No conservative wants illegal arms out there, and as much as you may not believe it, no conservative wants a war solely for economic purposes.

Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

Setting aside the matter of whether or not that's true, your original complaint was that "Supergirl" occasionally dealt with political issues from a liberal standpoint, arguing it should only focus on super-heroics.

I, as well as others, have pointed out that dealing with political issues is something the Superman mythos has done from the very beginning. And the original stories by Siegel & Shuster did far more than "Supergirl" does.

I therefore believe the problem is not the show dealing with political issues, but that you don't agree with the message. And that's unfortunate, because I think you really should be able to enjoy something, even if you disagree with the message.
"The Punisher" from Netflix had a very different message on the same issue (gun control), but I enjoyed it very much. Look at my av and signature, you'll be able to deduct that I'm a fan of Robert E. Howard's "Conan" stories. Now, they are often racist and misogynist, and Howard's personal belief (expressed directly in "Beyond the Black River") that civilization as a concept is inherently doomed to failure and barbarity will always triumph in the end is something I very much disagree with. But I still can find the stories enjoyable and some of Howard's ideas even thought-provoking.

Look at this more as an entry into a debate. Because that's what opinions are, in the end. They're not fact, and nobody expects you to accept them without question. Nobody asks you to stop thinking for yourself and let them do it for you (especially not these bits of entertainment). The makers of "Supergirl" merely expressed their own views on this subject, and just as you expect others to accept your opinion, as well as your right to express it, so should you grant them the same rights. And then, you may debate them. Tell them (and us) that you disagree with them, if you do (like in this case), but don't ask them to shut up.
 
The Realist said:
There's good indifference

and there's bad indifference

Some things are nobody's business and harm no one. Others are literally matters of life and death. Conservatives have a habit of getting these two categories reversed. And not caring about anything, as you seem to advocate, is not much better.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion. Everyone has em' and everyone thinks theirs is more important or right then someone else's. To each their own, I always say. respect someone's ideas, disagree with them, but don't infer someone is a certain way in general, because groups in the end boil down to individuals, and not everyone thinks the same, even in a group.

Just because you have a weapon for self defense doesn't make you a taker of life. It makes you prepared for the worst scenario.. Nature's ultimate dance that has been around since time immortal, kill or be killed. I hope that never comes anyone's way, but it will be something I personally would be prepared for. That doesn't make me a bad person, just cautious.

As for Guns being the root cause of death and destruction, before that it was muskets, bows and arrows, canons, Swords, daggers, spears, and pointy sticks. So that is called life.. It's not safe out there. Never was. We have just grown as a people to make it more safe, but it's still not entirely safe out there. knives, and cars are used with just as much malice.

As far as who someone chooses to sleep with or date... non of my business, and nor do I find it necessary for it to be a focus in entertainment unless that is the subject matter choice.. However how many people tune into Star Wars for the Identity politics? Do you tune in to Supergirl to see what the latest SJW knod and trend is? I know I wouldn't and many other people feel the same. Sometimes A-political story driven content appeals more to the masses and bridges the gaps between the two sides, then taking a single preachy and in your face attitude. Which only serves to put people off. The world is full of not-like minded people. Why not appeal to them all, then to a specific segment and then blame the fans of that segment for not accepting and liking the ideology being crammed down their throats?? The height of arrogance and stupidity is someone with that mindset. Sadly many in the shill media, and the studios think that way. It's been proven time and again to drive down sales, not improve it.
 
Kirk Prime said:
...None of the above took up half a season. Let's use James and Lena since this was the closest. I realize the chip on your shoulder wants you to think it has to do with Alex being gay, but there is a huge difference besides orientation in James/Lena. Alex's romance took up far more screen time and we had to deal with a good 20 minutes or more per episode of Alex whining about her dating life, or 20 minutes of her being happy. It didn't really matter, because that was 20 minutes that had nothing to do with Supergirl.

James/Lena, and all of the other examples are just a little character development and way on the side. Alex/Maggie was a big deal because the writers kept making it that way. But it should have been much further in the background. So sorry to knock you off the soapbox, but it wasn't that it was a gay romance. It was that it was a gay romance that took up far too much time to the detriment of the show. If it were a straight romance, it wouldn't have had so much screen time but again, it was about liberal causes, nothing more.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the idea that 20 minutes spent on what's going on in Alex's life has nothing to do with "Supergirl". Since season 1, there has been one relationship on Supergirl that has been paramount and I'm not talking about James and Lucy, James and Kara, James and Lena, Wynn and Kara, Wynn and Siobahn, Wynn and Lyra, J'onn and M'rynn, Kara and M'onel, or even (platonic) Kara and Lena.

The number one relationship on this show has always been Kara and Alex and how what affects one, affects the other.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Although one might argue that "the same sex relationship" from season 2&3 colors this show as a "liberal soap box", look on the bright side. You didn't need to worry about Alex's ruined love life reflecting poorly on the male half of the species when "he" refused to fulfill her dream of having children.

If this show really was a soapbox for the far left... we would not have seen Alex and Maggie. Instead we would have seen a passionate Kara and Lena...

With...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

and without M'onel

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
starsuperion said:
That's your opinion. Everyone has em' and everyone thinks theirs is more important or right then someone else's. To each their own, I always say. respect someone's ideas, disagree with them, but don't infer someone is a certain way in general, because groups in the end boil down to individuals, and not everyone thinks the same, even in a group.

Just because you have a weapon for self defense doesn't make you a taker of life. It makes you prepared for the worst scenario.. Nature's ultimate dance that has been around since time immortal, kill or be killed. I hope that never comes anyone's way, but it will be something I personally would be prepared for. That doesn't make me a bad person, just cautious.

As for Guns being the root cause of death and destruction, before that it was muskets, bows and arrows, canons, Swords, daggers, spears, and pointy sticks. So that is called life.. It's not safe out there. Never was. We have just grown as a people to make it more safe, but it's still not entirely safe out there. knives, and cars are used with just as much malice.

As far as who someone chooses to sleep with or date... non of my business, and nor do I find it necessary for it to be a focus in entertainment unless that is the subject matter choice.. However how many people tune into Star Wars for the Identity politics? Do you tune in to Supergirl to see what the latest SJW knod and trend is? I know I wouldn't and many other people feel the same. Sometimes A-political story driven content appeals more to the masses and bridges the gaps between the two sides, then taking a single preachy and in your face attitude. Which only serves to put people off. The world is full of not-like minded people. Why not appeal to them all, then to a specific segment and then blame the fans of that segment for not accepting and liking the ideology being crammed down their throats?? The height of arrogance and stupidity is someone with that mindset. Sadly many in the shill media, and the studios think that way. It's been proven time and again to drive down sales, not improve it.
Click to expand...

:guffaw:

Kirk Prime, is this your alternate handle?

Pardon me if I'm mistaken. You're sick of hearing people moan and bitch about politics, yet you're perfectly comfortable expressing your political viewpoints on matters of guns and human sexuality? You can't have it both ways. That's not how a rational discourse works.

All I'm hearing is more intolerance on the part of the conservatives. Intolerance leads to prejudice. Prejudice leads to bigotry and blatant discrimination.

I sense much intolerance in you and your ilk.
 
The Realist said:
There's good indifference

and there's bad indifference

Some things are nobody's business and harm no one. Others are literally matters of life and death. Conservatives have a habit of getting these two categories reversed. And not caring about anything, as you seem to advocate, is not much better.
Click to expand...

Yes, where guns are concerned, it is a matter of life and death--that's the point. For some, their view is so myopically one-sided (meaning against guns) that unrealistic positions prevent them from recognizing a need for a kind of defense not provided by:
  • TASERs, which come with problems such as a need to be in close proximity to the target--15 feet according to TASER's product information--and is not always effective in stopping an assailant, or a "stun gun" or stun baton that require actual physical contact--and the hope that 1) it stops the attacker and 2) the attacker does not disarm you being that close.
  • Physical combat that demands a level of preparedness not possessed by the average person (meaning are you--at any time--ready to physically disarm/disable an attacker?).
  • Attempting to talk a criminal down.

The people wanting to see all guns vanish from reality are not living in reality when one considers that the alternatives listed above--as an absolute--push the user toward greater danger forcing he or she to have direct contact with one or many that (it can be argued) have more experience in committing / no compunction against acts that can violate and/or kill you. What is the answer to that problem? A greater focus on society's role? Laws? Historically, both have not nor will they ever rid the world of criminals and the real threats they represent. It cannot predict motives or what makes someone take the violent path. Criminals--life long or one-time--will always be here in one way or another, so there is a need for the innocent to defend themselves with something that at least offers a better chance than stun guns or fist fights. The self defense of the innocent should not be conflated with the mindset & violence of criminals as if it all the same--a sweeping (manipulative) judgement not uncommon to some anti-gun advocates.

Again, what is a legitimate alternative or answer?
 
The message was indeed pretty ham-handed. If Winn's non-lethal weaponry ends up being as de facto effective I think it will be a bit specious.

I think Guardian should trade up from his shield to a car door because in modern shows cars don't even get scratched by bullets. I blame CGI since a squib will at least leave a mark.
 
TREK_GOD_1 said:
Again, what is a legitimate alternative or answer?
Click to expand...

The legitimate alternative is already employed in the rest of the developed world. There are countries where even the police don't carry guns. And all those countries have crime and criminals, and all those criminals still have (illegal) access to guns, yet death by criminal activity is rare, and by gun violence almost nonexistant.

What is the reasons this works everywhere else, but couldn't work in the US?
 
starsuperion said:
Just because you have a weapon for self defense doesn't make you a taker of life. It makes you prepared for the worst scenario.. Nature's ultimate dance that has been around since time immortal, kill or be killed. I hope that never comes anyone's way, but it will be something I personally would be prepared for. That doesn't make me a bad person, just cautious
Click to expand...

Well, no, it puts you at greater risk, it puts society at greater risk. Check the US murder rates compared to the rest of the developed world. You may as well be living in Somalia.

starsuperion said:
As for Guns being the root cause of death and destruction, before that it was muskets, bows and arrows, canons, Swords, daggers, spears, and pointy sticks.
Click to expand...

And? All those things are tools, but making the tools more effective doesn't reduce their impact.

The same argument could be made for carrying RPGS or flamethrowers, it wouldn't be any sillier than the context in which you've just used it.

starsuperion said:
It's not safe out there. Never was. We have just grown as a people to make it more safe, but it's still not entirely safe out there. knives, and cars are used with just as much malice.
Click to expand...

Nope. They account for a miniscule fraction of the deaths that guns do and in countries without guns they aren't routinely used as substitutes. I've never in my life owned or carried a gun. I'm still here healthy and hale, along with a way greater proportion of people I grew up with than would (on average) be the case in the US.

starsuperion said:
The world is full of not-like minded people. Why not appeal to them all, then to a specific segment and then blame the fans of that segment for not accepting and liking the ideology being crammed down their throats?? The height of arrogance and stupidity is someone with that mindset. Sadly many in the shill media, and the studios think that way. It's been proven time and again to drive down sales, not improve it.
Click to expand...

So?

Many things affect sales, the best way to maximise profit is to make TV by formula and remove all real creativity and risk taking. Big Brother and reality TV sells, that doesn't make it interesting or worthwhile, just mindless and profit driven.

Better we take those risks and address issues somewhat more important sales alone. After all, as keeps being pointed out, comics have always been political, this isn't something new.

TREK_GOD_1 said:
The people wanting to see all guns vanish from reality are not living in reality
Click to expand...

Or just not in the USA.

Because, y'know, we've actually tried it.

And it works, every single time.
 
Kai "the spy" said:
I, as well as others, have pointed out that dealing with political issues is something the Superman mythos has done from the very beginning. And the original stories by Siegel & Shuster did far more than "Supergirl" does.
Click to expand...

Action Comics #1, page 1

tAZUVtn.png


Nope, nothing political about that... :whistle:
 
Spot261 said:
But we aren't talking about Clinton, what he did doesn't make Trump boasting about sexual assault ok. He was voted in by a public largely unaware of that behaviour, whereas everyone already knew exactly what Trump is and yet you voted for him anyway. That's the key point here.
Click to expand...

No matter how many times you repeat it, Trump did not boast about a sexual ASSAULT. That's simply untrue. Bill Clinton was re-elected after the scandals broke. And when the truth came out, the left tried to make HIM the victim. Bill Clinton, unlike Trump, actually DID commit sexual assault--multiple times. His wife was his accomplice. His wife bashed his victims. His wife got your vote. Thanks to Bill Clinton, sexual assault by the president is actually presidential, and the left endorsed that. To have some sort of outrage, when they supported someone who did far worse, is meaningless.

Spot261 said:
Conservatives who've knowingly had innocent people put to death?

Um, other than throughout feudalism, the crusades, the british empire, slavery and the holocaust?

How many liberals have done similar things?
Click to expand...

Those are conservative ideals? Well, if you want to play that game, how about communism and all the murders that happened there? Many liberals proudly display the Soviet flag in their college dorms, which was responsible for more oppression and death than all of your examples.

You honestly think that conservatives believe in Nazi tactics? Really? How much has Hollywood brainwashed you?

When you call conservatives Nazis, you are disrespecting the people killed by the Nazis, and de-valuing the significance of what the Nazis did. You normalize it by making it "someone who isn't liberal." It's wrong.

Gryffindorian said:
Stating facts - or even expressing opinions - does not equate to "shoving ideas down people's throats," as you've repeatedly pushed this rhetoric throughout the entirety of this thread. This argument gets tiresome that it almost borders on trolling. As I stated earlier in the thread, no one is pushing an agenda or even forcing you to accept some liberal ideals.
Click to expand...

I have pushed anything down people's throats. And yes, Supergirl does push liberal ideas down people's throats. There is absolutely NO reason for Supergirl to be political. NONE. And what they do is so one sided, it's costing them. If they tell you what you want to hear, you're not going to care, but those of us that don't believe in extreme left wing garbage will not like it, and their tactics are extremely disrespectful of basically half the country.

If you want to complain about trolling, that's what the writers of Supergirl do.

And if you really want to talk about pushing liberal ideals, in this thread alone, look back, and see how much conservatives have been attacked. And the writers of Supergirl are 100 percent pushing liberal ideals. It's a flaw of the show. I want to watch Supergirl, not listen to a gun control lecture that had nothing to do with the episode.

starsuperion said:
Carry on discussing crap that people discuss on the news.. If you want that why not watch the news, or join a political chat website? Why do we see this political back and forth everywhere. Used to be the subject material was more important. Star Wars, Doctor Who, Star Trek, Marvel COMICS, DC Comics, and various other TV series.. It's sad really. No one can speak their mind, without the names coming out, the political slants coming out, and the intolerance of others opinions.
Click to expand...

This is EXACTLY the point. I don't want politics when it comes to Supergirl, or any of the above. I just want to watch a sci-fi show. But this show forces the writers' views down people's throats, and it's a big flaw. If this is what the writers do, then the backlash is expected.

I, as well as others, have pointed out that dealing with political issues is something the Superman mythos has done from the very beginning. And the original stories by Siegel & Shuster did far more than "Supergirl" does.
Click to expand...

Not like this. I have watched Superman my entire life. I have read comics. If Superman was just some sort of shill for the democrat party, he wouldn't have ever been so popular. From some of the posts I've seen, people are so blinded by their left wing views that they think that liberals are the monopoly of good and all conservatives are Nazis. That's insane. Superman stands for certain ideals, but he is not some sort of borderline communist like Supergirl is becoming. Superman has never been a propaganda machine for the left. If he were, again, never would have been so popular. Also, the original Superman stories were 80 years ago.

I therefore believe the problem is not the show dealing with political issues, but that you don't agree with the message. And that's unfortunate, because I think you really should be able to enjoy something, even if you disagree with the message.
Click to expand...

The problem is that I expect a comic book show to deal with heroes and villains, not force feed their politics. As others have pointed out, there are other places for politics--news channels, and other TV shows that are more relevant. Politics on Supergirl is as obnoxious as politics in the NFL. The role of a TV show is to entertain, not to throw your politics in people's faces.

I disagree with the idea that 20 minutes spent on what's going on in Alex's life has nothing to do with "Supergirl". Since season 1, there has been one relationship on Supergirl that has been paramount and I'm not talking about James and Lucy, James and Kara, James and Lena, Wynn and Kara, Wynn and Siobahn, Wynn and Lyra, J'onn and M'rynn, Kara and M'onel, or even (platonic) Kara and Lena.
Click to expand...

Alex's life was more like a romantic drama. It had nothing to do with an alien with special abilities devoting her life to helping people and being a hero. Supergirl's relationship with her sister IS important. Her sister's romantic life is not. And it wasn't about her relationship. It was about the writers wanting to stand on their soapbox and pat themselves on the back for having a gay relationship. Ironically, I think they did more harm than good. Coming out is a big deal, and that episode had relevance. But after that, until Maggie left, Alex might as well have been wearing a shirt that said, "I'm gay," because it completely became 100 percent of her character, which sucked, because before Maggie, and after Maggie, Alex was a far more interesting character. Compare that to Sulu in Star Trek, who while gay, it was basically no big deal. Alex was gay. Sulu was a pilot/officer that just happened to be gay. It was part of him, but didn't define him. Big difference. The writers dropped the ball with Alex, and it hurt the show. Maggie leaving was the biggest blessing. It's just unfortunate that the writers can't just entertain and have to lecture.
 
Kirk Prime said:
Not like this. I have watched Superman my entire life. I have read comics. If Superman was just some sort of shill for the democrat party, he wouldn't have ever been so popular. From some of the posts I've seen, people are so blinded by their left wing views that they think that liberals are the monopoly of good and all conservatives are Nazis. That's insane. Superman stands for certain ideals, but he is not some sort of borderline communist like Supergirl is becoming. Superman has never been a propaganda machine for the left. If he were, again, never would have been so popular. Also, the original Superman stories were 80 years ago.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Siegel & Shuster stories were published during the presidency of FDR and handled a lot of the issues on his agenda, like a story on workers' rights, a story on the dangerous housing of poor people, etc.

Meanwhile, yes, in the past "Supergirl" did a lot of "dog whistling" for Clinton supporters and Trump haters, especially when President Marsdin was a very obvious Hillary analogue. But they've done little to nothing of that in the last season, maybe due to the shift in showrunners.
What they have been doing a lot is handling issues. And issues are not owned by any party. The issues are just there, whether any party offers a solution or not. And they affect people's lives, far more than the gender or ethnicity of a political leader. And a TV show, even a superhero show, is allowed to make its own statement on these issues.

You previously proclaimed that the issues Superman tackled in his first adventure were not owned by the left. So, I ask you: Is the issue of gun violence owned by the Democratic Party?

Also, communism is a concept of economy, and if "Supergirl" has stayed off any political field, it's economics. If anything, she idolizes the founder and former CEO of a major News Corporation and is besties with LexCorp, both pretty big capitalists. She's nowhere near being a communist.

The problem is that I expect a comic book show to deal with heroes and villains, not force feed their politics. As others have pointed out, there are other places for politics--news channels, and other TV shows that are more relevant. Politics on Supergirl is as obnoxious as politics in the NFL. The role of a TV show is to entertain, not to throw your politics in people's faces.
Click to expand...

The thing is, the show still deals plenty with heroes and villains. But you expect the show to exclusively deal with heroes and villains.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top