I consider myself more conservative than not. I have no issue with female characters.
Could be an entire female cast and wouldn't bother me.
Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
Could be an entire female cast and wouldn't bother me.
So buzz word jockeys count for all conservatives?
Then one would guess you were aware that the nature of generalities leads to a lack of truth about a subject, especially one dealing with personalities and interests.
Well I think people understand if they say something like Republicans are doing something bad or Democrats are doing something bad it's just assumed that person doesn't literally mean every single Republican or Democrat is doing something bad. It's just shorthand language so you don't have to keep repeating qualifiers.
I prefer precision in language to avoid generalities. Yes, it takes more time, and yes it's annoying but dealing with such a large group of people (fans, political groups, etc.) those qualifiers are helpful.
The reason why is because those generalities are held by many to be "all conservatives." I live in a region were that gets applied very broadly and people think the whole region is a particular way. It's not.
But generalities stick. It's unhelpful. It's a logical fallacy.
The reason why is because those generalities are held by many to be "all conservatives." I live in a region were that gets applied very broadly and people think the whole region is a particular way. It's not.
But generalities stick. It's unhelpful. It's a logical fallacy.
That's exactly the problem and yet you keep doing it, too.
Last edited:
And it's assumptions like that, that lead to communication breakdown.
IE, they're fine with women characters as long as they're dependent on men and are usually overshadowed by them?
Ignore Jayson. This is just what he likes to do.
Every time reality breaks in WV eps 1-3:
Every time reality breaks in WV eps 1-3:
One of the things I loved about it was the subtle ways all of the more and more things started creeping into Wanda's fantasy world right up until it completely broke, and if you skip the first the first three episodes you lose all of that. And the whole point of the show is seeing how desperate to Wanda is to escape her pain and her grief, and you really need every episode of the show, to really understand just how desperate she was and how far she was willing to go.
And I'm 36, and I'm a huge fan of a ton of old shows like The Andy Griffith Show, The Dick Van Dyke Show, I Dream of Jennie, and Betwitched.
And I'm 36, and I'm a huge fan of a ton of old shows like The Andy Griffith Show, The Dick Van Dyke Show, I Dream of Jennie, and Betwitched.
Interesting, that's the album version of 'Help Me, Ronda', not the remake/single version 'Help Me, Rhonda'.
You're spot on. And the movie where X-23 appeared was literally titled "Logan".
I remember we used to have a poster on this board who had nothing against the Supergirl series until the final battle of season 2 when Kara took down Kal in the final episode. That poster was so bothered by this that he ended up leaving the board over it. It didn't matter that Kryptonians strength came from their powers, only that Superman's strength had to be ultimately greater than Kara's. He was fine with everything (IIRC) up until that episode and it blew his mind so much, he kept going back to that one point over and over again for years.
I remember that. I tried in vain to point out that strength is not the only thing that determines victory in a fight. Kara learned her fighting technique from her sister Alex, who as a 5'6" female combatant must have trained specifically in how to defeat bigger, stronger opponents; indeed, we often saw her do just that. Superman, meanwhile, was self-taught, and had probably gotten by with strength and speed alone and hadn't needed to learn sophisticated technique. So it was entirely logical that Kara could outfight Clark despite Clark being stronger.
Really, it was strange to me that this poster was so adamant that the winner of a fight must be the stronger fighter. I mean, even aside from how untrue that is in real life, heroes in fiction have been defeating bigger, stronger opponents since at least David and Goliath. It's normal in fiction for heroes to be outmuscled or outgunned by their opponents, so that the heroes' victory over them is more impressive.
It's almost like combat is determined by a multitude of factors rather than just raw strength.
Usually if a character is just "strong" they are regarded as a brute, unrefined and unskilled.
Usually if a character is just "strong" they are regarded as a brute, unrefined and unskilled.
Indeed. But that "unrefined" and "unskilled" notion is a bias from a faction within another ideological group, some among their number resenting the fact that in many cases, someone with great physical strength can overwhelm, with no amount of fighting skill or strategy able to counter that force.