There's no problem there if you think people like myself are asleep you've already jumped off the deep end.
I think
everyone has blind spots and it's silly to pretend we don't.
You have no idea what I believe, and thankfully you illustrated my point that you tell us what you believe and it's quite loud and clear what you mean and what your sweeping assumptions are.
You complain that I have no idea what you believe and then you immediately jump into ascribing things to me without asking. Hilarious! Oh, and you claim it's unreasonable to call you "asleep" when you display such an immediate lack of self-awareness of your own hypocrisy. Very amusing.
And this is just a perfect example. You just started your argument by grouping people by skin color.
Acknowledging the social reality of racial identity groups doesn't mean you're not acknowledging the various other axes along which which oppression functions.
But the unavoidable fact of the matter is, we know that the infant mortality rate for black Americans is much lower than it is for white Americans. There are only three possible explanations for that: Either black women don't love their babies as much as white women do, or black women are less capable of taking care of their babies than white women are, or black women are subjected to institutional discrimination that white people do not often perceive. The first two explanations are inherently obviously false: Black women love their children just as much as white women love theirs, and black women are just as capable of taking care of their children as white women. The
only explanation is that systemic racial discrimination exists and operates in ways in which may white people don't perceive it.
speaking about implicit biases, how about that bias where all of the world can be defined by "implicit biases" regardless of whether or not they have any connection to reality.
Here's a very quick way to test yourself if you have an implicit bias. Think of the word "scientist." Do you picture a man or a woman when you think of that word? If you picture a man, congratulations -- you have an implicit bias, because your culture has taught you to associate the idea of "scientist" with men.
The vast overriding feature of the world we live in is that we're the very very recent product of some very very horrid social environments. The problem with the "implicit bias" is that it doesn't have any means of distinguishing between history and the present social environment.
If you look at natives in Canada you get people with pure native ancestry and people that are mostly european at this point(i.e. me). Turns out the amount of native blood/your appearance has little to do with your problems in life. Turns out the best predictor of your hardship isn't whether or not you look white or look native, but whether or not you're a victim of abuse(in my case molestation).
I am very sorry to hear that you were the victim of molestation. But that doesn't justify ignoring
a lot of evidence of institutional discrimination against Indigenous Canadians.
Yes. And being "woke" means recognizing its complications, including those complications that are unpleasant.
The famous black barbie ball study being a perfect example of just bad science. Turns out black kids prefer white barbies, because "duh" the design of a barbie was based on a lightly colored plastic. So naturally if you flip the color scheme it is gonna be less desirable.
Citation needed.
You're trying to redefine what the concept even is.
No, I'm explaining how your understanding of the concept is flawed.
TNG characters didn't have an abundance of negative qualities, it's sort of the whole point. They were mentally stable, disciplined people.
Absolute hogwash. The TNG characters are arrogant chauvinists who believe that their culture is superior to others. They look down upon 20th Century humans as inherently inferior instead of recognizing that everyone is a product of their own cultures and the political systems of which they are a product. They ignore evidence of their own mental health struggles (Jean-Luc in "Family," "I, Borg," and
First Contact come to mind). Hell, Jean-Luc was a 57-year-old man who was not asexual or aromantic and was not holding a profession that prevented a relationship, yet he had never been able to maintain a long-term romantic partnership? That's a huge red flag that there's something not right with his mental health, yet the series completely ignores this! We see Starfleet pressure officers who have suffered profound traumas to go back to work way too soon (e.g., Jean-Luc after both Borg assimilation and Cardassian culture), the mental health care they do offer is laughably bad (it is very clear that nobody who ever wrote Deanna's therapy sessions knows what the hell good mental health care looks like). They constantly spread the belief that biological essentialism explains the behavior of aliens rather than framing things in terms of culture.
The TNG characters have a
lot of flaws! But TNG as a narrative doesn't recognize them as flaws, because TNG as a narrative (and its characters as a result) is far less conscientious than DIS or PIC are.
Do you swear is like literally one of the base questions on a questionaire? Just start with that one.
Swearing is a normative way of expression strong emotion, and in modern parlance, using "shit" as a synonym for "stuff" is extremely normative. It is classist to assert that there's anything wrong with swearing.
It was 26 episodes with the same cast, multiplied by two series, and a feature length film every other year. With all the limitations of 1990s CGI.
My point is you do more of an anthology like series, where you can use different/casts stories in what is technically considered the same show.
That's cool, but it was always an extremely difficult production system that exhausted its employees.
The question is why, the assumption that it is anything other than the product is easy, the reality is that it boils down to content being produced. Peakcock doesn't have a tent poll brand, Disney and Paramount took tent poll brands and decided to alienate a massive proportion of the installed fan bases associated with those franchises.
I'm sorry, but no. Plenty of these shows have been extremely popular outside of the online echo chamber. The problem is not the content, the problem is the business model.
Am I shocked that one of those properties produced the Orville?
To be clear,
The Orville spent its first two seasons on the Fox network and only moved to Hulu in its third season. It has since also premiered on Disney+, since the Walt Disney Company owns both Disney+ and Hulu. It is unclear if
The Orville will be renewed for another season at this point.
It's not the size of the catalog that counts it's how you use it. The key aspect is brand loyalty. You build up a brand that people are loyal to and you have a steady income stream.
Brand loyalty derives from the catalog. Ultimately, you gotta have both size and variety. Think about it -- back in the 90s, you didn't go to the Disney Video Rental Store or the Paramount Video Rental Store or the Warner Bros. Video Rental Store. You went to Blockbuster, or Family Video, or Hollywood Video, and those chains would carry content from a variety of genres and a variety of studios, and they needed to carry enough inventory that there would be a steady stream of customers every day.
The same principle applies to streamers. Disney+, Paramount+, etc all made a bet that they could deficit-finance the production of a large and varied enough catalog that they could eventually maintain a steady customer base. The questions are, 1) will that plan work at all?, and 2) will that plan work in the amount of time their parent companies now need it to work in? We'll see.
Trolling fan bases is not how you create a loyal fan base.
No one trolled fans, and it is pure narcissism to imagine that that was the motivation. Like it or not, the creators just had different artistic tastes than you happened to have.
People were quite vocal on how the brand betrayed them,
I'm sorry, but I can't take that kind of nonsense seriously. A different of artistic taste is not a betrayal.
