Politics/Slapfights - Ancient history to modern day!

[Mobius_118]

Let's focus on the fact that the US has the highest infection rates because the GOP can't pull its head out of its ass. Test kits? let's refuse them. Malaria meds as a potential cure? Let's just rush that and damn the consequences. Social distancing? That's just some Millennial mumbo jumbo because it's their fault anyway. Let's accuse medical personnel of stealing supplies. Let's call it a hoax, pull insider trading, and ignore the threat.

Hey let's fire the pandemic response teams that did their jobs back in the Obama Administration so well that Ebola and Zika were contained with minimal loss.

Trump deserves every single piece of criticism. He is criminally negligent in this entire crisis. $1200, one time, isn't going to keep anyone from going homeless, but is a step in the somewhat right direction. It's also hilarious that the GOP, so staunch a fighter against Socialist ideals, embraces it when it comes to corporate bailout. When it comes to the very people that make the system work they shit their collective pants.

[Sinekein]

Malaria meds as a potential cure?

About that, I will not say that those meds (chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine) are not efficient. However, I am pretty confident in saying that so far there is absolutely no reliable proof that they are useful in treating Covid. The few studies that have been published that praise it as a godsend have not been peer-reviewed, only consider small samples of individuals and have severe bias in how the studies have been conducted (people leaving the study midway through because they changed hospitals, for example). And even then, the results are far from miraculous - recovery rates are not extremely different from those of people who don't use the medicine (one thing to note is that in those studies, there have been no comparisons done with samples of people who did not receive this molecule, to see whether there was an improvement or not).

Of course now conspiracy theories are floating around saying that whatever big organization you hate the most (governments, Big Pharma, deep state, the elite, the Jews, the freemasons, the Illuminati...) is responsible for hiding the truth in order to keep humanity under its thumb, and they use articles published by Eric Raoult to do so - but while he is not a fraud like the guy from the "vaccines cause autism" study, he is not a world respected, Nobel-prize-level researcher either, and his study methods and analytics are far from flawless.

[Mobius_118]

I consider myself lucky. I went through hotspots to and from my last training event and I have zero symptoms. So far.

I could just be a carrier, but my blood type is apparently more vulnerable to COVID-19, so I should be symptomatic if I caught it. Either way I'm not taking chances. Social distancing, mask precautions, bio-isolation...Simple things that keep my county clean.

Right now I have a sibling who's a nurse. She's vulnerable as hell, and each country hospital has exactly one ventilator. Despite all of trump's bullshit praising for being "prepared for this", his lies hold no water in reality. This is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better. trump and his supporters are entirely at fault for allowing this pandemic to get this bad.

[Vol]

Well, two of the governors that banned the use of the anti-malaria medication have overturned their bans. So in the absence of anything better, might as well go with what appears to have positive effects. Even if a placebo, though it seems these medicines do in fact help physically. The problem, however, is the greedy and the panicked trying to buy out the supply chain, as they do with anything else they imagine is critical to people.

But yes, heavily authoritarian states would have the more effective responses. An absolute dictatorship would be the best, in fact. One man could order everything and have it done without process or human rights coming into consideration. Not an ideal scenario, granted, but it would save the most lives.

Disease is trickier than most activities, because the stupid, the reckless, the uninformed, have the potential to kill everyone, theoretically. Given the nature of this specific virus, if it ends up doing double the yearly flu death rate, up to quintuple, with the draconian measures taken, then we'll bury our dead, mourn, and move on. It seems to be remaining contained among the very old and the ill, who while sympathetic, are always the most vulnerable, and are easier to isolate and provide care for in the existing channels they generally have.

Though since I also maintain that a zygote is a human life, maybe I'm inured by the idea of human death.

Also the House Dems are starting up another committe/investigation against Trump about all this. Need to gin up some headlines for the election, I suppose, might as well go for the third try.

[Sinekein]

I think that the Republicans who sold a ton of stock options right before the market dropped are much better investigation targets than Trump here.

Unless you consider stupidity to be criminal, Trump does not look like he has committed any offence so far. He has just been saying whatever went through his mind without any care for the human consequences but that is hardly different than the first three years of his presidency. If he has not been impeached before, there is zero reason he would be this time around.

His stupidity and incoherent rambling are most definitely going to cost a ton of American lives, but it is absolutely impossible to quantify. Honestly, it looks more like a defensive move to poison a second mandate than a serious attempt to do anything before November. If the Democrats lose, then they will try to make Trump the president who caused 100k excess deaths in the US.

[TheodoricFriede]

Its not a criminal act to sell your stocks when they are high and you expect them to drop. That's called 'knowing how stocks work'.

[Mazder]

In the legal sense, no.
In the emotional sense, when there is about to be a pandemic that causes said stocks to go down, then yeah kinda.

I mean they shouldn't have legal action put against them but neither should anyone really trust them if they ever utter anything close to "we're all in this together" "let's all do our part" "we can't do that because it's expensive".

Basically they're still assholes for looking out for their own selves during the crisis.

I mean if anyone is willing to actively try and profit off a crisis then I honestly say fuck 'em. I honestly don't care if you'd have made a loss if you're earning enough to live decently and you wanted to recoup your potential losses just before a crisis. Especially if you're a representative in power that decides over resources that decides if some people die.
If they'd spent that money on medical equipment and gave that to hospitals or something, then fair, at least they were doing it to be kind/helpful.
But if you're out for your own in a crisis and you're one of the leaders then fuck you. I don't want to pretend to care.

[Mobius_118]

Insider training is illegal. This case? Still illegal. The knowledge was not public.

[TheodoricFriede]

It is so abundantly clear none of you have ever had stocks.

My god. Its like, hilarious.

[Mobius_118]

And you don't check out the laws on it.

It's hilarious.

[Vol]

I'd agree to that. I severely doubt it's _illegal_ for elected representatives to inside trade, but making sure they crossed their t's and dotted their i's with an ethics investigation would be fair.

[Mobius_118]

It's like a repeat of the Enron scandal, cept more will die for greed.

[TheodoricFriede]

I'd agree to that. I severely doubt it's _illegal_ for elected representatives to inside trade, but making sure they crossed their t's and dotted their i's with an ethics investigation would be fair.

Did you know that if you receive insider information you can use it legally, provided you report it through proper channels? Most average people dont.

Most stock advisors do. And I guarantee you that anyone in government who has stocks also has an advisor.

[Mobius_118]

As long as it's public knowledge.

This wasn't public knowledge. Hence, illegal.

[Sinekein]

Did you know that if you receive insider information you can use it legally, provided you report it through proper channels? Most average people dont.

Most stock advisors do. And I guarantee you that anyone in government who has stocks also has an advisor.

Proper channels you say?

For some reason this guy was also one of three (3!) senators to vote against the law stopping lawmakers to insider trade.

[TheodoricFriede]

I also sold stocks before they went down. Did I also inside trade?

If you think a global pandemic is 'insider trading' i dont know what to tell you. Enjoy whatever fantasy land you live in.

[Sinekein]

I don't know, did you publicly state that the pandemic was nothing big and that the US could handle it while you were privately selling your stocks?

Also, was this the kind of common "safe sell" stockholders do on a regular basis when something looks fishy, or was this a huge sale you had never done before? As mentioned in the article, this was this senator's largest stock movement in a year and a half, so it was not the kind of routine "cashing on" sales you do.

[TheodoricFriede]

I don't know, did you publicly state that the pandemic was nothing big and that the US could handle it while you were privately selling your stocks?

I certainly made claims that I didn't expect the virus to be as bad as it was.

And all be frank, given when I know about the people complaining about this? Pretty typical case of the Have-Nots complaining about the Haves.

[Sinekein]

Then you're suited to be a Senator, you definitely seem to have the proper moral compass for that, what with considering there is a rift between those who have and those who don't (funny of you to assume that my ideological positions mean I'm poor, by the by).

[Mobius_118]

I didn't know saying that something was illegal, (and it being true) was a case of being a have-not.

You really are just a petulant child.

[Sinekein]

I think it has more to do with an inability to care for the well-being of others. Hence, any complaint about an unfair system must automatically be a basic case of envy.

[Mazder]

Theo, get off your fucking high horse.
If you're privileged enough to be able to have stocks then I'm just gonna call you privileged. Stop your whining about people complaining about assholes being assholes. If you don't like what they're complaining about then be better and don't be like them. Don't defend already well off people looking out for number one when there are people they govern who are worse off and about to be hit extremely hard by the crisis they just cashed out for.

These people get to decide if the poorest in their state/constituency/whatever level it is can even afford to live, or earn a living wage, or pay for the healthcare they WILL need, or even technically who lives and dies and what are they doing? Getting themselves richer.

I have 0 sympathies or empathy for anyone in power/office who sees a massive crisis coming and thinks "my money!!!!".

If you're pirvileged enough to have stocks then bully for you, but don't act like this shit these public representatives are doing is all good and fair.

Any elected official out for number one just before a crisis they know is coming is an asshole.
And if you're defending their actions then you're just as bad.

It's greed, plain an simple.

[TheodoricFriede]

Oh, that touched a nerve or two didn't it?

[Sinekein]

"Look at those losers, they have empathy. I"m so much better than them because I don't give a fuck about anyone but my miserable person. So superior."

[TheodoricFriede]

Riddle me this, Batman.

What does my modest understanding about how stock market works have anything to do with my ability to empathize?

Because in the scenario you provided I have positively no one to empathize with.

Correction. The only humans in the scenario you provided are 3 Senators who are being called criminals for making smart financial decisions. And I do in fact empathize with them having to deal with being called criminals for something that was not a crime.

[Sinekein]

What does my modest understanding about how stock market works have anything to do with my ability to empathize?

Lol. I'm not sure Chewbacca would have tried that defense. Anyway.

Your lack of empathy does not come from understanding the stock market. It has nothing to do with it.

Your lack of empathy comes from taunting Maz. And presumably Mobius and I to, the other hypothetical have-nots. And having a worldview made of "people who have" and "people who are jealous of them".

You could just be the random privileged dude who empathizes with the others lucky enough to be born in the right place, but you prefer to go one step further and rub it in the face of someone who seems to suffer from not having had the same luck at birth.

I mean, actually, my accusation is wrong. You seem to have empathy for the poor Senator who is criticized for using his privileged position to become even richer without caring for his constituents who will suffer from the crisis.

[TheodoricFriede]

I mean, actually, my accusation is wrong.

Well as long as you acknowledge the important part.

Good night!

[Mazder]

You are defending them more than the thought of those same senators actually providing for the people they supposedly represent.

Who gives a fuck if they'd have lost some money?
People WILL die because of the choices they make.
And they chose to get money back rather than focusing on sorting stuff out for their people.
They were not gonna lose their jobs and they were not going to be made destitute for the loss so, honestly, fuck them.
They're supposed to be the ones to lead by example and the example they show is "fuck it, I'm gonna make sure I got my money".

And even if their inside trading was not illegal it is definitely shifty, so I'd still want them investigated anyway.
Hell I'd want ALL Senators investigated to keep them honest, because clearly there are a lot of greed driven assholes in the Senate.

But don't even listen, I am sure the complaints of the plebs is nothing to concern yourself with my liege. How can the serfs provide for you today? Want us to lick your boots?

If it takes the "have-nots" to point out when you're being a shitty person, as with these Senators, then maybe they should listen.
Fuck the sound financial moves, what about sound governing moves? Surely that should take precedence over their precious money.

[Sinekein]

Well as long as you acknowledge the important part.

Good night!

No worries, I had absolutely no expectations of you starting to look like a decent human being in the future.

[Vol]

Rather not scorch the entire page, but I'll play it by ear.

This all raises the question, however. If you do learn something that will affect your finances from your position of knowledge, what are you supposed to do? Doing nothing and accepting the loss is a hard sell.

[Mobius_118]

Especially for greedy cock guzzlers who mock and threaten those that point out the legality issue.

All of those that profited from this already have more than enough money to buy a small island and live like kings. Fuck them.

[Vol]

Well, yes, in the specific case of politicians, they're already in a special caste. I'd honestly prefer there be a vow of poverty to hold high office, and Congress was mostly farmers, small business owners, and blue collar workers. it would be more palatable to see someone with only a couple thousand in stocks dumping before a drop.

[Mobius_118]

Problem with that is the usual stock holder with a couple thousand in stocks won't have all that top secret insider info to take advantage of before it's public. The insanely rich have that though. And tax cuts. And taxpayer funded bailouts.

And I'm the one that gets called a mooch because I'm a Veteran and a police officer with decent knowledge of the law.

[Vol]

Well, there is no way to expect lawmakers to not have privileged information that would affect the markets, as they craft and pass the laws. And people in the highest tiers of private power, they too run in the same circles, and know the same things. I don't know what the legal or ethical line in the sand is for trading stocks, because to demand total ignorance of the near-future is ridiculous, and the opposite is clearly immoral. So demand they own nothing but tangible assets and their savings accounts?

[Mobius_118]

Well, there is no way to expect lawmakers to not have privileged information that would affect the markets, as they craft and pass the laws. And people in the highest tiers of private power, they too run in the same circles, and know the same things. I don't know what the legal or ethical line in the sand is for trading stocks, because to demand total ignorance of the near-future is ridiculous, and the opposite is clearly immoral. So demand they own nothing but tangible assets and their savings accounts?

Pay taxes like the rest of us at a higher rate because even paying 80% taxes, a billion dollars turns into 2 hundred million, which is still enough for one person with extremely lavish tastes to live in absolute comfort for 200 lifetimes.

There's zero reason, logically, for someone to accrue wealth like a dragon and hoard it as such. And there's zero reason morally to take inside trading information, before it becomes public, and profit off it when you know it's going to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

It's illegal, it's immoral, and it's worth getting hung from a street light over, especially when the threat of drowning in your own lungs us just going to grow with dipshit withholding medical supplies because "aww they were mean to me."

No wonder we're leading the world in cases and soon to be deaths. Trump is a non-functioning retard, the rich profit off the death and ignorance of the rest of us, then price gouge life saving equipment just to make a little more profit, the trump supporting boomer population ignores expert advice on flattening the curve, and the younger assholes berate those that point out everything wrong then bitch when they get clapped back.

[Sinekein]

Well, there is no way to expect lawmakers to not have privileged information that would affect the markets, as they craft and pass the laws. And people in the highest tiers of private power, they too run in the same circles, and know the same things. I don't know what the legal or ethical line in the sand is for trading stocks, because to demand total ignorance of the near-future is ridiculous, and the opposite is clearly immoral. So demand they own nothing but tangible assets and their savings accounts?

The entire US political system runs on lobbying. Obviously things like this are gonna happen. And you decided to put in power a man who is the living embodiment of oligarchy and making friends with the powerful to get richer while somehow believing he was going to "drain the swamp", which was roughly as believable as asking a crocodile to guard a herd of gazelles or to hire Theo to give compliments to people who aren't himself: it was doomed to failure from the very beginning.

One solution would be to stop all the super-PAC stuff, and the financial gifts from the private sector to politicians. That would dramatically decrease the amount of money politicians can expect to gain while being elected, and should shift towards more people who are in it for moral or social reasons, instead of just being there because that's where you get influence needed to be rich.

Also, believe it or not, but in many countries politicians cannot buy ads to put on TV. In France we have laws that limit how much a party can display his opinions in the media, and if one gets too much screen time, the others automatically get free air time to compensate (the calculations are arcane but are linked to the results in recent elections, with obviously an automatic share for whoever is the government at the time). So it means that you can't have Trumps or Bloombergs deciding to flood all channels with their face, because A/ there is a legal limit to how much they can spend and B/ if they do so their rivals get the same thing, but for free. And while our political system is far from lobbying-free, at least it does not make it so that the richest get an automatic advantage when they want to run.

The U.S. are the most capitalist country in the world, so their political system reflects that. And if things like what that Senator did are allowed to go through unchecked, the gap between the rich and the poor is only going to widen, especially since this very thread demonstrates that people with minor personal wealth would rather see others eat shit than do anything that might slightly lower their yearly income. With the 10 million people who filed for unemployment, you are going to see way more poverty than before, and the U.S. already top most lists of Western Countries when it comes to how shitty life is for the poor.

And of course being more transparent with what politicians privately own, but since the president did not even release his tax returns, how can you expect less opacity?

[Vol]

Bernie's out. Thought there was a chance he'd fight it out until the convention, and hope Joe's brains ooze out in a public way, but no dice. Revolution canceled, vote for the neoliberal. Suppose that'll be his last campaign too. A pity, even if I fundamentally disagreed on many topics, I respected his relative honesty and raising an attack against the entrenched system.

@Mob: The issue I see with harsh progressive taxation is that, much like the current system, globalism makes it nearly impossible to enforce. No one with great wealth is ever going to pay "what they should," and will hide/offshore so much that their debt to society is less than yours or mine. You can have those kinds of systems when the nation's wealth, is by and large, internal. When you're talking of taking $800,000,000 out of a billion, then any measure that costs less than that to dodge it is very obviously incentivized. And with the obscene lack of care given to overseeing the public's monies, what is your pitch to compel the wealthy, or even the decently comfortable, to not lie, duck, and hide their income? This is the same government that spends millions to fund studies on lesbian bed death and buys unwanted tanks and pays people lavish salaries to not work.

@Sine: Kinda-sorta. I see it more that lobbying is a major component of deciding what little gets done by our leaders, like getting a poorly trained dog to shake with a treat. The full blame for them being feckless scum is more nuanced.

I believe the issue is that the SCOTUS would treat the normalization of campaigning as an infringement of free speech. If Candidate A has a billion dollars and wants to buy a billion dollars in ads, and Candidate B has a million and wants to buy a million, then to force Candidate A to not spend more than Candidate B is the government infringing on his right to make his speech heard. Something along those lines.

The theory, however, I'm okay with. Forcing competition from a more equitable platform, since no one who runs for higher office is a person of virtue or worth, at least might help sift out the completely irredeemable from the merely incompetent. Also cuts out PACS and donation begging. Now, if we _had_ a crop of philosophers and humble but passionate men and the like, then I'd prefer the freer system.

[TTTX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LTBDpODL7Q&list=WL&index=84

[Sinekein]

@Sine: Kinda-sorta. I see it more that lobbying is a major component of deciding what little gets done by our leaders, like getting a poorly trained dog to shake with a treat. The full blame for them being feckless scum is more nuanced.

I believe the issue is that the SCOTUS would treat the normalization of campaigning as an infringement of free speech. If Candidate A has a billion dollars and wants to buy a billion dollars in ads, and Candidate B has a million and wants to buy a million, then to force Candidate A to not spend more than Candidate B is the government infringing on his right to make his speech heard. Something along those lines.

But in that case it would be allowing candidate B to get the difference for free - or doing it NBA style with a luxury tax, above a threshold you pay for equity between candidates.

Since you are running for a public office, then it is a way of respecting free speech and liberty of thought to ensure that voters get an accurate idea of every platform, and that they don't only get flooded by the opinions of those with the deepest pockets.

(For the record, in France there is a preliminary step - getting signatures from already elected officials - to stop loonies from running for some positions, it is not a perfect system though)

The theory, however, I'm okay with. Forcing competition from a more equitable platform, since no one who runs for higher office is a person of virtue or worth, at least might help sift out the completely irredeemable from the merely incompetent. Also cuts out PACS and donation begging. Now, if we _had_ a crop of philosophers and humble but passionate men and the like, then I'd prefer the freer system.

The problem being that as long as politics are a good way to become richer, then it will bring fewer and fewer of the humble kind, and more and more who are just in it for personal wealth. If that senator becomes an example of a guy who had insider knowledge and used it to become richer or at least to avoid colossal losses AND got away with it, then you will get more and more guys like him running for office as a way to get the same kind of insider knowledge.

[Vol]

Insult each other and spirituality here ↓

[TTTX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HChHoKZmhY&list=WL&index=33

well the people have called fans everything under the sun are now trying to win them back, because they need money,

I find that funny.

Nemesis as my grandmother always says will always get the last laugh.

[Alienmorph]

Yeah, access media can fuck right off. If there's one good thing of the current situation is that a lot of those cretins will have to chose between stopping with all the fake activism, or find a new job. It's a very small consolation, and it sucks it's going to cost a lot of good people their job too, but in the current situation I'll take any small victory I can.

[Sinekein]

I think it's more of a pragmatic numbers issue: before Covid, the industry was booming viewership-wise which allowed some middling successes to fall on the right side of the fence when it comes to the financial departments, and as long as it makes money, it's good and more similar projects should be started and paid for.

But now with the crisis in sight, those very same projects suddenly don't have as much appeal because they will end up on the wrong side of financial balances.

Those clowns are just cherry-picking movies that fall in that "middling results" category and fit their "woke writers are killing industry boohoo" narrative, but you also have a ton of not-woke movies that will end up in the very same situation.

But if some people expect the end of "wokeness" thanks to Covid, I mean, here's to dreaming. Last year three of the five top grossing movies had "woke controversies" - Captain Marvel (feminist propaganda), Frozen II (same, with some lesbianism thrown in), and The Lion King (antiracist propaganda). And in 2018 the top grossing movie in the US was Black Panther. So thankfully for those indignant paragons who are running their youtube business, they will still have a ton of "awfully woke blockbusters proving the moral corruption of the film industry" to be angry at once Covid has ended.

And they'll even get more things to say because now a ton of projects, both supported by them and by the "SJW community", are going to be cancelled, giving them an occasion to A/be mad that one of their pet projects is being unfairly cancelled B/poking fun at the fact that those idiots that are wrong on the other side are whining. It will be gloriously symmetrical because the "SJW community" will be in the exact same situation, and since those two "communities" are continuously validating each other's existence, they will get to keep their Twitter and Youtube IQ-deficient wars for years to come.

[Alienmorph]

As for "cherrypicking", that's VERY debatable. When was the last time that a movie or a series that was what you could call "woke" was an outstanding success, outside of the critics sphere? Even stuff like the Watchmen show that got phraised to hell and back, still didn't do well enough to earn a second season, and now everyone's pretending it was never meant to get one to save face (haven't seen it myself, so I'm using it as an example I'm kinda neutral about, for all I know I might end up enjoying it when I do).

But yeah, I don't expect "wokeness" to magically go away, and even if does it's going to be very temporary, just to keep the entertainment industry from losing too much money when they need every penny to survive in the post-Covid economy. It's something that is just too radicated in internet and pop culture these days, although like all online trends it will eventually ran its course too, and then we can hopefully talk again about social issues without just going "I am right, and if you don't agree you're a nazi!" all the damn time.

But at least the current situation could create some opportunities to people who have been unjustly gatekept out of things for years, and get rid of some egregiously nasty folks, once the smoke clears and some of the businesses already weakened before go down under. Which again, it's not something to celebrate in an of itself, given good people will lose work too. I'm trying to see the glass half-full, so to speak.

[TTTX]

But if some people expect the end of "wokeness" thanks to Covid, I mean, here's to dreaming. Last year three of the five top grossing movies had "woke controversies" - Captain Marvel (feminist propaganda), Frozen II (same, with some lesbianism thrown in), and The Lion King (antiracist propaganda). And in 2018 the top grossing movie in the US was Black Panther. So thankfully for those indignant paragons who are running their youtube business, they will still have a ton of "awfully woke blockbusters proving the moral corruption of the film industry" to be angry at once Covid has ended.

more like bad wokness and people accusing fans who disagree with them to be basically being a Nazi and so on and toxic fan boys.
They have been very vocal these last few years and been pushing for a lot of stuff that hasn't paid off and then went back to insult the fans for supporting them while telling them the product wasn't for them anyway.

Well Captain Marvel wasn't that good (the most best memorable things in the movie are Nick fury, the cat and of course the opening with the Stan Lee logo as he had passed away some months before) and there is also a bit of a rumor that Disney well bought some tickets themselves as people have reported going to almost empty theaters despite having people ordering tickets at least according to the theaters and people was interested Captain Marvel because of Avengers Infinity War because of the scene after the credits hinting at her, so people wanted to know.
However the fans doesn't seem to like the character, mostly because the she is really flat as a character and Brie have played her rather boringly and well Brie is also an "activist" for wokness but it seems to be more for the bad wokness which makes her well a bit more hated by the fans.

Can't speak for Frozen 2 because I have seen that one.

As for the Lion King well let's be honest it was just pure Nostalgia for original that got people to watch it, because having a close to all Black cast didn't improve the movie at all if anything because of the movie the voice acting was worse then the original the worst of the bunch at least according to fans were Beyoncé (she can't voice act to save her life) as Nala and Chiwetel Ejiofor as Scar, of course it didn't help that "live action" movie was made as "real" it really hurt the performes of everyone involved and there was also a lot other problems with the movie.
So yes the movie made money but it won't be remembered as a good movie and more like the Disney sequels that it exist (like the other live action remakes) but won't be remembered as well as others.

just because something makes money doesn't mean it's good (Bayfromers movies is pretty good example of that outside the first one which is good) and because it has wokness in it doesn't mean it's bad, just take Sonic from this year it was a good movie and had wokness in it, no one cared because the story and execution of it was good.

[Sinekein]

So first - that Watchmen show was 100% made for just one season. The story just wraps itself perfectly, there is nothing that hints at future arcs, everything is solved in that single season. I won't spoil it if you haven't seen it but I can absolutely guarantee that it was not designed for multiple seasons.

If you want another successful, currently-going woke series, I think The Handmaid's Tale fits the bill quite well. As for a movie, Black Panther was just two years ago, but if you don't want a big Disney-produced one, then you can either pick Get Out or Us by Jordan Peele - both horror movies that made incredible money despite being very much of the "woke, political" kind some people automatically hate.

"For some reason", the anti-wokeness advocates focus way more time on the bad examples (Ghostbusters 2016) but avoid talking much about excellent movies that just happen to have a strong underlying social commentary - maybe because their mere existence tends to make their whole point look dumb.

(You also have excellent non-political movies that are neither racist, nor sexist or offensive, and "SJW" tend not to focus on them either - it's easier to go on the easy target like Transformers 2. As I said, symmetrical)

more like bad wokness and people accusing fans who disagree with them to be basically being a Nazi and so on and toxic fan boys.
They have been very vocal these last few years and been pushing for a lot of stuff that hasn't paid off and then went back to insult the fans for supporting them while telling them the product wasn't for them anyway.

I have political sympathies for those who defend diversity in the media, I won't even try to deny it.

But the toxicity here is entirely shared. There's no side better than the other. There's no side more privileged than the other either, because saying that straight white dudes are discriminated against is just as untrue as it comes - you get tons and tons of these characters, way more than any other kind of fictional character.

Right now there is for example something of a consensus that Rey is a Mary Sue. It's basically a meme. Red from OSP made an entire demonstration as to what it was utterly dumb to call her that (in no small part due to how incredibly similar she is to Luke Skywalker who has never been accused of the same thing) and yet it's seen as fact that does not even need to be discussed by many people. That for me is an example of fan toxicity coming from the "anti-woke" side.

Just like that cosplayer who was forbidden to participate in an event because apparently her undead LoL pirate was considered to be black and as such her costume was blackface - that's a consequence of fandom toxicity.

And those two toxicities are basically enabling each other's existence. If one were to die down, the other would have nothing to get angry at.

So I'm not going to give good and bad points here. Some youtubers - both sides - only get money and viewers because that utterly dumb controversy exists and some people keep watching their videos. So of course they will keep adding fuel to the fire - your views are their money.

[Alienmorph]

Handmaid's Tale I haven't seen it either. Black Panther definately had some "woke" elements in it, but it was still first and foremost a fun superhero popcorn flick, I still enjoey it despite some of its most on the nose moments and situations.

Right now there is for example something of a consensus that Rey is a Mary Sue. It's basically a meme. Red from OSP made an entire demonstration as to what it was utterly dumb to call her that (in no small part due to how incredibly similar she is to Luke Skywalker who has never been accused of the same thing) and yet it's seen as fact that does not even need to be discussed by many people. That for me is an example of fan toxicity coming from the "anti-woke" side.

Yeah, and that is one of the few instances of me disagreeing with Red from OSP. Rey is probably one of the most blatant examples of a Mary Sue outside of the Star-Trek fanfiction that gave the name to the trope. She's literally instantly good at everything she does, everyone including the main villain likes her, and she's so good and pure from beginning to end that she pretty much has no character growth because she's so perfect her character is almost entirely static, with the exception of her coming to grip with where she comes from.

Luke has a bunch of commonalities with her, mostly because Rey was literally made to replace Luke, but he still had to earn his skills, the friendship and respect of Han and Leia, and made mistakes along the way he had to pay the price for. It's one of the reasons his portrayal in Last Jedi pisses me off so much, because what Rian Jhonson did to the character COULD have worked in context with who the original character was, if done more competently and not just for the sake of trolling the audience and to prop-up the shiny new character.

What's the worst flaw of Rey? That she cares too much? Was she ever ever arrogant or hasty or stubborn and had to learn not to? Did she ever met someone who wasn't immediately impressed by her or liked her, besides the secondary villains? Ffs, even Palpatine think so high of her he was willing to either let her replace him or "fuse" with her.

[Sinekein]

She's literally instantly good at everything she does, everyone including the main villain likes her, and she's so good and pure from beginning to end that she pretty much has no character growth because she's so perfect her character is almost entirely static, with the exception of her coming to grip with where she comes from.

You pretty much described Toph Beifong from ATLA (minus snark).

And that is because those are not the traits of a Mary Sue. Those are the traits of a Paragon Hero. Like Captain America.

Those have fallen out of grace recently for a variety of reasons, but they still are a kind of hero archetype, no more nor less valid than other hero archetypes.

"Mary Sue" can be referred to both from a Doylist POV - character is an obvious self-insert from the author around whom the entire story and cast revolves - and from a Watsonian POV - the character is absurdly successful at everything it does to the point of breaking the suspension of disbelief.

Now, Watsonian: is Rey extremely successful? Most definitely. Is that absurd? Well, we already had a Prequel Trilogy in which Anakin was exactly as gifted as she is, so no, her skills are not unbelievable within the Star Wars universe (not even accounting for other stupendously talented individuals like Revan). Is her mere presence enough to solve situations? Absolutely not, since TLJ (which for the record I do not like) ends with her barely escaping with her life and how little remains of the rebellion. Is she universally liked by everyone? She is a Paragon hero, so obviously "good characters" will like her. The villain is obsessed with her, but it's not really anything new in Star Wars, is it? The Dark Side trying to lure Jedis is basically almost always there, the only difference is that this time the main villain has little emotional maturity, unlike Palpatine, Vader or Dooku.

Doylist? There are many characters who exist and grow in a Rey-less setup, they are not defined by her existence. And if there is one character that is actually at the center of the trilogy, in grand Star Wars fashion, it is actually the fallen Jedi Kylo Ren which is instrumental on getting the plot forward with an added personal tie.

Now the problem with Rey is that she is a female Paragon, and that is extremely rare (at least when it was released, since then there has been the Wonder Woman movie). And that's normal too: for the longest time there were basically no female leads in action or adventure roles, and then came the 80s and 90s with their antiheroes that made the old-school Paragons look dated. So when we started to get female leads, they logically were antiheroines - Kate Beckinsale's character in Underworld, or Katniss Everdeen, or most of Angelina Jolie's roles - because at that point most male leads were the same.

And then came Rey who was a Paragon, something that had basically been unheard of for roughly 20 years - so people said "she has no obvious flaws, she is a Mary Sue". That is the same kind of reasoning that led to the super depressing Superman from the Snyder movies - even Superman could not be written as a Paragon.

Now whether or not she is a good character is not the debate really because it boils down to personal taste (I don't think she is that great and the movies don't make her shine anyway), but she is not a Mary Sue, she is a Paragon, like Wonder Woman, Captain America or Black Panther. Except those three characters were in movies way more suited to their nature - Rey basically was, I think, a paragon, not because of a will to create a new archetype for a female character or because the story required one, but because SW7 is an obvious rewriting of A New Hope and that is how Luke was defined (while ironically also being one of the most influential movies when it came to promoting antiheroes with Han Solo).

[Alienmorph]

She's literally instantly good at everything she does, everyone including the main villain likes her, and she's so good and pure from beginning to end that she pretty much has no character growth because she's so perfect her character is almost entirely static, with the exception of her coming to grip with where she comes from.

You pretty much described Toph Beifong from ATLA (minus snark).

No, no I did not. It is true that Toph gets very quickly in the graces of therest of Team Avatar, but like everyone (including the damn Avatar, at least until Korra shown up) in the Last Airbender universe has to earn mastery of their talents through training and disclipline, and considering she is also f-ing BLIND, makes the fact she is as skilled as she is, and managed to earn it mostly by herself, all the more impressive and unique. Plus there's the whole family drama subplot, and what we discover about the life she lived once we get in Legend of Korra. Overpowered? Yeah. Likeable? Yeah? Flawless paragon perfect in any way? lolNO

And that is because those are not the traits of a Mary Sue. Those are the traits of a Paragon Hero. Like Captain America.

Those have fallen out of grace recently for a variety of reasons, but they still are a kind of hero archetype, no more nor less valid than other hero archetypes.

Yeah, like the fact some modern writers thought the guy created by a jewish artist, who's first appearance ever has him punching Hitler in the jaw thought Steve Rogers looked too much like an arian uber-mensch to NOT be a nazi double-agent.

Still, Cap also earned his skill... not trhough training true, but he would have never gotten the chance to become a superhero if he wasn't that much of a brave and determined person that not even his crippled underdevolped phisical condition could keep him down. The first Captain America MCU movie does a surprisingly good job at driving that point across. And that is all BEFORE the whole "man out of time" thing and the modern character development he got about standing for the american ideals and people, instead than for the american government.

It's true that both Toph and Cap are charismatic and likeable, but they still have flaws and hardships to overcome that I don't really see Rey, or other Sues and Stues, deal with.

Now, Watsonian: is Rey extremely successful? Most definitely. Is that absurd? Well, we already had a Prequel Trilogy in which Anakin was exactly as gifted as she is, so no, her skills are not unbelievable within the Star Wars universe (not even accounting for other stupendously talented individuals like Revan). Is her mere presence enough to solve situations? Absolutely not, since TLJ (which for the record I do not like) ends with her barely escaping with her life and how little remains of the rebellion. Is she universally liked by everyone? She is a Paragon hero, so obviously "good characters" will like her. The villain is obsessed with her, but it's not really anything new in Star Wars, is it? The Dark Side trying to lure Jedis is basically almost always there, the only difference is that this time the main villain has little emotional maturity, unlike Palpatine, Vader or Dooku.

Doylist? There are many characters who exist and grow in a Rey-less setup, they are not defined by her existence. And if there is one character that is actually at the center of the trilogy, in grand Star Wars fashion, it is actually the fallen Jedi Kylo Ren which is instrumental on getting the plot forward with an added personal tie.

Yes, and the fact Anakin is an overpowered tryhard everyone think is the choosen saviour of the galaxy is what leads to him falling from grace and turns into Darth Vader. That, and the social context that enabled him and the help of a clever and manipulative villain. In a way Anakin is a clever subversion of the Mary Sue trope, because he DOES have all the markings of it, but that is ultimately what bites him in the ass and destroys everything he was standing for. And he only gets a chance to fullfill his original destiny because of another person who DID overcome some his same flaws to see the light again. Except now not even that is true because the Emperor "survived" Anakin's final act of sacrifice so that the REAL hero could stop him 30 something years later.

Now the problem with Rey is that she is a female Paragon

Okay no, I have to stop you right there immediately. Rey's gender has nothing to do with it. Had she a buff white guy with blue eyes and blond hairs call Ray, but everything else about the character was left as it is, he would still be an underdeveloped Mary Sue/Stu, and Star Wars had plenty of interesting female leads... most of which were in the Expanded Universe Cathleen Kennedy shitcanned, ironically... While I'll agree female Paragons are rarer than males, don't think that's particularly controversial or hard to verify, there is NO reason you can't write one as well as a male Paragon, nor does the fact your main hero has a vagina makes them automatically better or worse. Let's leave the "gender issue" card off the table, please.

[Sinekein]

Okay no, I have to stop you right there immediately. Rey's gender has nothing to do with it. Had she a buff white gal with blue eyes and blond hairs call Ray, but everything else about the character was left as it is, he would still be an underdeveloped Mary Sue/Stu, and Star Wars had plenty of interesting female leads... most of which were in the Expanded Universe Cathleen Kennedy shitcanned, ironically... While I'll agree female Paragons are rarer than males, don't think that's particularly controversial or hard to verify, there is NO reason you can't write one as well as a male Paragon, nor does the fact your main hero has a vagina makes them automatically better or worse. Let's leave the "gender issue" card off the table, please.

Then why is it that only female characters get the "she's a Sue" treatment from the anti-wokosphere?

If she was a guy, she would be described as "bland" or "boring" but not as a "Marty Stu". That is just never used for male characters.

I never said that there is a correlation between gender and writing quality. I however very much say that there is a correlation between gender and how eager people are to call a character a Mary Sue, because...when was the last time a male lead was called that? Is there a prominent male character that gets called a Mary Sue by a sizable portion of fans?

Because we at least have Rey & Katniss as very prominent female leads who get to be called Mary Sues. Meanwhile I don't recall it being brought for, say, Mission Impossible's Ethan Hunt, or Steve Rogers, or Peter Quill, or James T. Kirk.

Edit: and I forgot whatsername from Twilight, she also get the Mary Sue treatment.

That's honestly my only statement here: that if fans were honest and unbiased, they would either sometimes use the Mary Sue slang to criticize male characters who fall into that "hyper-successful" archetype, or they would just find other ways to caracterize such female leads.

Still, Cap also earned his skill... not trhough training true, but he would have never gotten the chance to become a superhero if he wasn't that much of a brave and determined person that not even his crippled underdevolped phisical condition could keep him down. The first Captain America MCU movie does a surprisingly good job at driving that point across. And that is all BEFORE the whole "man out of time" thing and the modern character development he got about standing for the american ideals and people, instead than for the american government.

It's true that both Toph and Cap are charismatic and likeable, but they still have flaws and hardships to overcome that I don't really see Rey, or other Sues and Stues, deal with.

Being blind or weak is not a flaw, and both characters here basically get a "get out of jail free" pass out of it - Cap with the serum, Toph with the tremor sense. Cap's real hardships in particular occur once he has become a perfect moral paragon - before that, his biggest "hardship" was not being allowed to become a soldier during WW2, I mean, yeah okay it's not that horrible right? Toph at least needed two steps to overcome her blindness - first becoming a master earthbender, then getting away from her family. But what we see of pre-serum Cap is a physically tiny guy who still has good friends and who just doesn't have the body to fulfill his dream...like basically most people on Earth. The real suffering comes once he is Captain America, not when he was Steve Rogers.

And I really love his character, the above paragraph is not about dissing him, it works extremely well in the context it is given. That for me is Rey's actual issue - that her character does not fit the story she was given. A no-name orphan growing up on a remote planet who becomes a master Jedi could be a fantastic story, but the last SW trilogy was not that.

No, no I did not. It is true that Toph gets very quickly in the graces of therest of Team Avatar, but like everyone (including the damn Avatar, at least until Korra shown up) in the Last Airbender universe has to earn mastery of their talents through training and disclipline, and considering she is also f-ing BLIND, makes the fact she is as skilled as she is, and managed to earn it mostly by herself, all the more impressive and unique. Plus there's the whole family drama subplot, and what we discover about the life she lived once we get in Legend of Korra. Overpowered? Yeah. Likeable? Yeah? Flawless paragon perfect in any way? lolNO

The bolded part is funny because the entirety of the first season is about Korra being horrendously bad at learning airbending, but just like "Rey is a Mary Sue" has become the norm everyone agrees on, I assume that so does "Korra never even had to try to learn how to be the avatar it's not realistic". Aang needed fewer episodes to master earthbending than Korra did to become an airbender. As for the other masteries - Korra spent her entire childhood raised by bending teachers, while Aang was raised in an Air Temple, then grew up in wartime. It is more than heavily hinted that Aang's airbending is way better than Korra's waterbending. Their abilities properly reflect both their personalities, and the condition they grew up in.

Korra is actually a perfect example of the influence of dumb fans, because every single part of the show some have tried to turn into a political statement. "She's a girl so OF COURSE she has to do better than Aang" --> She absolutely does not do better than Aang, on top of having the luck of living in an era of peace Aang himself created (while he grew up during wartime). She screws up on a regular basis and more often than not due to her hotheadedness. "She's a lesbian because OF COURSE they want to force gay characters everywhere" --> She grew up without contact with other young people, and neither did Asami, is it that surprising that those two would end up taking time to find out their sexual orientation?

And then funnily enough later on it turns of "Look how Korra gets her ass kicked she sucks so much as an avatar". And throughout all you get comparisons to the seen-as-always-perfect ATLA, creating a mix of dumb fans of the "antiwoke" type, and of dumb fans of the "it was better before" type who are to Avatar what Genwunners are to Pokemon.