Spoilers Supergirl - Season 3

[Christopher]

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.

Although those early stories did have a rather juvenile wish-fulfillment approach to how Superman dealt with those issue. I mean, yeah, Supergirl's approach may be a bit heavy-handed at times, but it's nothing next to those early comics. The Superman of 1938-40 was basically a bully, using his superior strength to force and threaten people to do the right thing. Sometimes his tactics were essentially terrorist. In an issue where he took on reckless driving and the high auto fatality rate, he forcibly took over a radio station and basically threatened the public to drive safely or else, and then he destroyed auto factories that made unsafe cars. And then there was that time he dealt with a slum by destroying whole city blocks singlehandedly so the city would be forced to build new, better housing. Today's stories are paragons of subtlety by comparison.

The thing is, the show still deals plenty with heroes and villains. But you expect the show to exclusively deal with heroes and villains.

The reason we tell stories about heroes and villains is to tell stories about values and principles. Heroic fiction has always been political and ideological. The people we root for are the people who fight for the causes we believe in.

 

[starsuperion]

Kirk Prime, is this your alternate handle?

No, that isn't me.. Unless somehow Kirk is now an example of Misogyny, and "Kirk Prime" is some kind of slight..in which case.. NO again, not me.

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.

So let me get this straight, bitching about Entertainment becoming too political leading to political debates that divide fans is not okay, Oh, I see.. I gave my opinion on two topics in debate, and then somehow that makes me a hypocrite? Rational discourse is also respecting someone else's opinion. Instead of attacking every position that is not ones own ideological slant. Rational Discourse is about mutual understanding, not grand standing to prove one philosophy over another is correct.

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.

Oh well of course you would.. you've been conditioned to seek out intolerance in everything you see and hear. It's understandable. I don't have any malice towards those who have been brain washed and indoctrinated. I just pity them and give them accommodations, they surely need them. There, there.. (pats head)

 

[Jinn]

The canon is mightier than the cannon.

Someone said that, look it up.

I entered ""The canon is mightier than the cannon" and got three hits, two reddit pages and a porn site. I'm not kidding, look it up.

Also, if I make a picture of a cannon with my Canon, is that canon?

 

[Finn]

This is the most entertaining reading I've had a long while.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I can't help but think that maybe when people say that they don't want any politics in their superhero show, what they really mean is that they don't want politics that they disagree with in their superhero show.

It's the same way that people who think "politics have no place in football" have no problems counting heads at the mandatory patriotism display.

 

[Spot261]

Those are conservative ideals? Well, if you want to play that game, how about communism and all the murders that happened there?

I think you need a primer on political theory, communism and liberalism are completely different philosophies. The idea the world is simply left and right is a uniquely (and incorrect) American idea.

No matter how many times you repeat it, Trump did not boast about a sexual ASSAULT

Yeah, ok, you voted for this guy.

His wife got your vote.

Nope, stil not a US citizen

When you call conservatives Nazis, you are disrespecting the people killed by the Nazis, and de-valuing the significance of what the Nazis did.

Nazism is essentially an extension of conservatism, an extreme example. How about the British Empire? The slavery? The crusades? The KKK? All examples of structured conservative mass murder of those who threaten the status quo, that's what conservatism fundamentally is, the clue is in the name, conserving existing power structures.

 

[JasonJ]

I think TrekBBS is just as left-leaning as Supergirl is... it's clear there is little tolerance for any opposing or alternative ideology.

Nazism is essentially an extension of conservatism, an extreme example. How about the British Empire? The slavery? The crusades? The KKK? All examples of structured conservative mass murder of those who threaten the status quo, that's what conservatism fundamentally is, the clue is in the name, conserving existing power structures.

Your historical knowledge of slavery and the position of the two dominant political parties is flawed and missing facts. How many Democrats voted for the 13th Amendment again? Only 16 when it finally passed, so almost none of them. Similar sentiments for the Civil Rights act of 1964. Stop pretending that Conservatives always have been and continued to be 100% proponents of ugly things such as racism and hate. It's fairly clear that hate and intolerance and widely accepted by the left, so long as it is directed at Conservatives. As you point out in the meaning of "conservatism", I don't think that term really even applies to that ideology anymore, as it is more about personal freedom and more power to the States and the People than it is about the Federal Government fixing every problem with yet another expensive social program and taxing everything and everyone.

I know it will explode minds on this forum to learn this, but there do exist right-leaning people that believe in same-sex marriages, LGBTQ+ rights, and racial equality. Shocking, I know...

Also, the Crusades were in response to Muslim invasions... so... that was going to happen regardless of political leanings and ideology.

 

[Snaploud]

I'm not going to get into back-and-forth over the legitimacy of liberal or conservative viewpoints. I do enough of that in TNZ.

However, I will say that (as a liberal) I don't think the Supergirl writers are particularly good at expressing political ideas in a thoughtful way. The only exceptions are probably Alex's relationship and Jimmy's monologue about his childhood and interactions with police officers (both of which I thought were handled quite well).

 

[JasonJ]

I'm not going to get into back-and-forth over the legitimacy of liberal or conservative viewpoints. I do enough of that in TNZ.

However, I will say that (as a liberal) I don't think the Supergirl writers are particularly good at expressing political ideas in a thoughtful way. The only exceptions are probably Alex's relationship and Jimmy's monologue about his childhood and interactions with police officers (both of which I thought were handled quite well).

As a not-liberal, but not fully conservative, I have to say that I agree with your assessment. This is not the 1940s, 1950s, or 1960s, when your tv show stops feeling like a superhero story that sometimes deals with social issues and more like a political rally commercial, regardless of which side it takes, I see that as a storytelling failure. There are people who'd like to watch the show without being blatantly and very clearly and obviously insulted. You can't have civil discussion when the first step is to make a generalized ad hominem towards anyone who does not fall in line with the writers/show-runners views.

 

[Greg Cox]

In my experience, people don't perceive fiction that reflects their own views and values as "political," because they take that worldview for granted. It's only differing views and values that are seen as "political" and intrusive and distracting.

So, yes, stories about gun-loving, God-fearing, libertarian-leaning folks with "traditional" moral values and gender roles will not be seen as "political" by conservatives because that's Just the Way Things Are. It's only those OTHER stories that are sticking politics where they don't belong.

That being said, I'm about as liberal as they come, and even I was cringing a bit at some of the dialogue in the Very Special gun-control ep just because it got a little too preachy for my tastes. But that's an aesthetic objection, not an political. one.

And let it be noted that sometimes the absence of a message also sends a message, as with, say, the inclusion of gay characters and plot lines.

 

[Gryffindorian]

I can't help but think that maybe when people say that they don't want any politics in their superhero show, what they really mean is that they don't want politics that they disagree with in their superhero show.

QFT

They refuse to acknowlege the other side's POV, even when certain elements of the show reflect real-world scenarios. Can't stand the guilt, or can't handle the truth perhaps? "Okay, okay, I get it. Enough already."

N
I have pushed [sic] 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.

.

You keep repeating that phrase* is what I meant. That is a fallacy, a falsehood, an error, a misconception, a delusion. If you think there's no reason for Supergirl or any other show to be political, superhero or otherwise, then (1) you must live under a rock and (2) you have no reason to watch. You have that choice, so stop whining! You're not being coerced, pressured, or brainwashed in any way. I wonder how many times you've said you're done with this series, but here you are. You constantly complain about left-wing garbage, although you clearly wouldn't have that problem with right-wing trash that, say, Faux News spews.

 

[Gryffindorian]

Oh well of course you would.. you've been conditioned to seek out intolerance in everything you see and hear. It's understandable. I don't have any malice towards those who have been brain washed and indoctrinated. I just pity them and give them accommodations, they surely need them. There, there.. (pats head)

Dude! You're the one drinking the Kool-Aid, not I! Cheers.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

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.

Not quite. For one example, in 1997, England and Wales instituted a handgun ban, yet there was only one year (2010) where the gun homicide rate was lower than the year before the ban (1996). In fact, gun homicides doubled between 1996-2002, with the rate only falling with an increase of police officers in 2003-2004, but gun homicides still occurred and spiked with the ban in place. Part of the "first world" / most developed, yet their gun ban had the opposite effect. The problem was never the gun, but the minds of the people who were determined to end the lives of others, which no legislation will ever control.

One can easily argue that the gun ban only served to place the innocent in a dangerous position, not the criminals.

 

[dahj]

Not quite. For one example, in 1997, England and Wales instituted a handgun ban, yet there was only one year (2010) where the gun homicide rate was lower than the year before the ban (1996).

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

In the United Kingdom, annual firearm homicides total:

2013: 23
2012: 12
2011: 38
2010: 33
2009: 26
2008: 40
2007: 15
2006: 61
2005: 38
2004: 36
2003: 29
2002: 39
2001: 38
2000: 71
1999: 45
1998: 33
1997: 45
1996: 84

Which would be the opposite of what you claim

One can easily argue that the gun ban only served to place the innocent in a dangerous position, not the criminals.

How?

 

[Gryffindorian]

In my experience, people don't perceive fiction that reflects their own views and values as "political," because they take that worldview for granted. It's only differing views and values that are seen as "political" and intrusive and distracting.

So, yes, stories about gun-loving, God-fearing, libertarian-leaning folks with "traditional" moral values and gender roles will not be seen as "political" by conservatives because that's Just the Way Things Are. It's only those OTHER stories that are sticking politics where they don't belong.

Well stated. As in Kirk Prime's case, he perceives he is being brainwashed by the Evil Left because the show has featured gay relationships and women in leadership.

That being said, I'm about as liberal as they come, and even I was cringing a bit at some of the dialogue in the Very Special gun-control ep just because it got a little too preachy for my tastes. But that's an aesthetic objection, not an political. one.

And let it be noted that sometimes the absence of a message also sends a message, as with, say, the inclusion of gay characters and plot lines.

I didn't mind the dialogue. But as I said earlier, from a storytelling standpoint, I disagree with J'onn's decision to forego lethal weapons. That is a rather unwise move for a covert government agency dealing with extraterrestrial (mostly superhuman) threats.

 

[JasonJ]

Not quite. For one example, in 1997, England and Wales instituted a handgun ban, yet there was only one year (2010) where the gun homicide rate was lower than the year before the ban (1996). In fact, gun homicides doubled between 1996-2002, with the rate only falling with an increase of police officers in 2003-2004, but gun homicides still occurred and spiked with the ban in place. Part of the "first world" / most developed, yet their gun ban had the opposite effect. The problem was never the gun, but the minds of the people who were determined to end the lives of others, which no legislation will ever control.

One can easily argue that the gun ban only served to place the innocent in a dangerous position, not the criminals.

One could also cite the violence in Chicago as another example of extreme and strong gun control not eliminating nor reducing violence committed with a firearm. Nevermind the CDC study's that acknowledge over 2 million defensive uses of a firearm per year in the US. You don't hear about those because in nearly all of them, not a single shot was needed to be fired.

If it was truly about saving lives, children's lives at that, we'd be banning swimming pools. More school-aged kids die in distracted driving incidents per year than by firearms.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom



Which would be the opposite of what you claim



How?

That still shows that they happen at all, which is contrary to what we're told would be the case if similar bans were instituted here in the US. Look, the point is that until the 2nd Amendment is repealed (not likely) guns aren't going anywhere... so talk about wholesale banning them is moot.

If you really need someone to explain to you how gun bans put innocent civilians at risk, then this discussion has a serious problem. My thought is that you are not that ignorant and are asking this either rhetorically or to poke the bear, so-to-speak.

 

[starsuperion]

Although those early stories did have a rather juvenile wish-fulfillment approach to how Superman dealt with those issue. I mean, yeah, Supergirl's approach may be a bit heavy-handed at times, but it's nothing next to those early comics. The Superman of 1938-40 was basically a bully, using his superior strength to force and threaten people to do the right thing. Sometimes his tactics were essentially terrorist. In an issue where he took on reckless driving and the high auto fatality rate, he forcibly took over a radio station and basically threatened the public to drive safely or else, and then he destroyed auto factories that made unsafe cars. And then there was that time he dealt with a slum by destroying whole city blocks singlehandedly so the city would be forced to build new, better housing. Today's stories are paragons of subtlety by comparison.




The reason we tell stories about heroes and villains is to tell stories about values and principles. Heroic fiction has always been political and ideological. The people we root for are the people who fight for the causes we believe in.

Dude! You're the one drinking the Kool-Aid, not I! Cheers.

Nah..I like Diet Coke and Diet A&W. No koolaide in my diet. Lol

Ultimately, my view is that if studios and TV shows put down the social engineering, political infusions, they then attract more fans. Think about how novel and nobel the idea is that, with all the political back and forth, that back before the "woke" culture got a hold of pop culture, we as a society could put down the political differences, get together in a moderately dark space, and could enjoy a tv show or movie without strangling each other, and come together over a common theme, celebrate that theme, all while being entertained. To say nothing is lost, but only political commentary and social justice issues pushed forward (which is everywhere you look and not good) is a good thing, ignores the once time honored practice of mutual enjoyment, and coming together to share in a common theme. We get politics in news, movies, magazines, comics, facebook, twitter, you name it, it's there. So why would taking that everyday plethora of political toxic topics out of a show not be a good thing? I think it would actually be refreshing given how prevalent it is across all franchises and IPs.

With political story centering on divisive issues, it removes that down time we used to share, and forces the constant debates and fights that movies, tv, and entertainment used to be an oasis from, and foster more mutual and beneficial civil dialogue. We've lost that safe space to get together and come together as a people and friends over a like minded activity, that makes us forget the woes of everyday tribulations. That's my whole point. Right and left are correct and incorrect in their own right, but we have fallen far from the middle ground we used to share and come together with, outside of the political shouting and bickering.

 

[dahj]

That still shows that they happen at all, which is contrary to what we're told would be the case if similar bans were instituted here in the US.

Nobody is saying that if you ban guns today, nobody will die tomorrow or ever again.
But sure strawman along when confronted with actual data...

If you really need someone to explain to you how gun bans put innocent civilians at risk, then this discussion has a serious problem.

I'm an innocent civilian, I live in a country with a gun ban, I feel perfectly safe.
I'd like to explain to you why that's the case, but since you apparently feel insulted by a TV show merely suggesting that fewer guns might lead to fewer deaths, I'm not sure there's much point...

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

There are people who'd like to watch the show without being blatantly and very clearly and obviously insulted. You can't have civil discussion when the first step is to make a generalized ad hominem towards anyone who does not fall in line with the writers/show-runners views.

Well said.

That being said, I'm about as liberal as they come, and even I was cringing a bit at some of the dialogue in the Very Special gun-control ep just because it got a little too preachy for my tastes. But that's an aesthetic objection, not an political. one.

Preachy and immature.

It was as "Made for Kids": a style of message as one of the PSAs segments from the Super Friends--

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

Accept third party cookies

 

[Spot261]

Your historical knowledge of slavery and the position of the two dominant political parties is flawed and missing facts. How many Democrats voted for the 13th Amendment again?

What party someone was a member of has nothing to do with the philosophy of a policy. I don't care whether someone was a democrat or a republican, the fact remains the ideology of slavery is fundamentally conservative.

Similar sentiments for the Civil Rights act of 1964. Stop pretending that Conservatives always have been and continued to be 100% proponents of ugly things such as racism and hate.

Absolutely, people are capable of horrific things and acts regardless of how they identify politically, nonetheless conservatism pretty much has such behaviour written into it in principle. It was and remains about conserving power.

It's fairly clear that hate and intolerance and widely accepted by the left, so long as it is directed at Conservatives.

I'll give you that. Wonder why?

I don't think that term really even applies to that ideology anymore, as it is more about personal freedom and more power to the States and the People than it is about the Federal Government fixing every problem with yet another expensive social program and taxing everything and everyone.

What freedoms do we lack here in Europe with our social policies, our relative lack of inequalities, our vastly more effective healthcare, our lower murder rates and our perfectly usable freedom of speech laws?

All you have done there is pointed out that the existing power establishment is capitalist, with reduced taxation being the motivator being conservative policy. This isn't about problems being fixed by someone other than central government, it's about them not getting fixed at all unless there's a profit driven model.

I know it will explode minds on this forum to learn this, but there do exist right-leaning people that believe in same-sex marriages, LGBTQ+ rights, and racial equality. Shocking, I know...

I know, it's amazing the contradictions people can bear if it suits them. How's your VP wo believes in torturing gay people better?

For one example, in 1997, England and Wales instituted a handgun ban, yet there was only one year (2010) where the gun homicide rate was lower than the year before the ban (1996). In fact, gun homicides doubled between 1996-2002

Um , nope.

Plus we didn't have anything remotely comparable to the current US gun laws anyway.

One could also cite the violence in Chicago as another example of extreme and strong gun control not eliminating nor reducing violence committed with a firearm. Nevermind the CDC study's that acknowledge over 2 million defensive uses of a firearm per year in the US. You don't hear about those because in nearly all of them, not a single shot was needed to be fired.

Defensive uses of a firearm required because?

That still shows that they happen at all, which is contrary to what we're told would be the case if similar bans were instituted here in the US. Look, the point is that until the 2nd Amendment is repealed (not likely) guns aren't going anywhere... so talk about wholesale banning them is moot.

No, you are told they would be lower, but you're right, guns are going nowhere anytime in the US, you're years behind on that one and the gun lobby too strong. Shame how public opinion isn't as well reflected in your democracy.