Jump to content

Wonder Woman (spoiler thread) - skip to pg. 14 for actual movie discussion


Corvinus85

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

But if they did.. you don't think there would be a reaction? You don't think there would be uproar?

But they didn't. So there isn't.

Look, I get that you're worried about men never being able to see a movie about a woman, but you're using all of these examples that aren't applicable in the least

When those things happen, let's talk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Way to swerve the question.

Can we stop pretending we are having a honest debate with this dude? Like,  we all know what he's getting at,  and why. Nothing we say will change his stunted way of thinking. Hopefully the world will be rid of a lot of these types of dudes in the next decade or two. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

What on earth are you talking about.

Has this been forgotten already?

The WW London premiere has been canceled out of respect for the Manchester terrorist bombing that killed and wounded many girls at the Ariana Grande concert -- that was so much about and for girls.

Quote

. . . organisers have now told Metro.co.uk that the event didn’t feel appropriate in light of the tragic events that saw 22 people were killed when a bomb was detonated at an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena earlier this week.

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/24/wonder-woman-premiere-cancelled-due-to-safety-concerns-after-manchester-terror-attack-6659698/#ixzz4imwiFYXQ

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Lyanna, you asked why women would need a place away from men, suggesting they might in fact need one. If I misunderstood your comment then correct me, that's the problem with heavy sarcasm.

i wasn't aware that going to the movie theatre was such a dangerous experience for women; all those men sitting silently watching movies, it must be horrible.

NOT silent, o no, they are not!  And the garbage that comes out of them -- it's not fun to have to listen to.

But then, when you above indicated you had no idea about why the WW premiere in UK was postponed in respect to the victims of the Manchester bombing -- you evidently didn't notice that the Manchester terrorist bombing was done by a man specifically targeting girls.  Or maybe didn't notice it at all, since the targets were girls . . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Relic said:

Can we stop pretending we are having a honest debate with this dude? Like,  we all know what he's getting at,  and why. Nothing we say will change his stunted way of thinking. Hopefully the world will be rid of a lot of these types of dudes in the next decade or two. 

Yeah, it seems like they may all kill themselves with apoplexy over not being able to watch specific movie screenings. In fact, they should start doing this with every movie screening to keep them distracted. Might be something in that plan...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Relic said:

Can we stop pretending we are having a honest debate with this dude? Like,  we all know what he's getting at,  and why. Nothing we say will change his stunted way of thinking. Hopefully the world will be rid of a lot of these types of dudes in the next decade or two. 

exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Zorral So you are suggesting its only men who speak in movies and said bad things and not women? Because you are either living in some sort of isolated area or you are talking complete nonsense which is almost quite offensive.

ALmost as offensive as suggesting a major terrorist attack was motivated not by radical islamic ideas and politics, but instead because of some gender issues. I hope thats not what you are suggesting because thats not only ignorant but daft.

@fionwe1987And you are suggesting that descrimination is totally cool as long as only against certain groups, because of some sort of historical injustice.  I'm glad you are finally coming out and admitting this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

@ZorralALmost as offensive as suggesting a major terrorist attack was motivated not by radical islamic ideas and politics, but instead because of some gender issues. I hope thats not what you are suggesting because thats not only ignorant but daft.

@fionwe1987

One could argue that those two things can be tied together rather easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, fionwe1987 said:

Not true. If you look at just genetic regions, mice and humans have only about 60% similarity. Take in the intergenic and regulatory and so-called "junk" regions, and the difference is even more stark. Many of the non-genetic regions play a huge role in gene regulation in very complex ways. So no, simple gene rearrangement will not give you a new species, and certainly won't convert one species into another.

 

I should have made it clear (actually thought I had but a reread proves otherwise) that the researcher who said it knew fine well that you couldn't get a mouse or human just by jumbling up the genomic architecture but I think his point about the architecture being important was valid. Especially given the difference between a mouse and human from a non-mammalian obeserver is probably quite subtle (so even if the architecture effect is subtle our judgement call on the effect isn't). And the Ape human chromosome change is still interesting - although I admit I don't know whether there's any evidence to suggest the fusion event occurred before or after speciation. eg humans maybe were humans and had the extra chromosome only for it to fuse at a later point. And simply splitting the autosome up again wouldn't turn a person into an Ape either ( it could result in some notable changes most likely in terms of causing disease though).

Junk DNA is one of the worst names ever given to something in science. They could have at least called it "Dark" DNA or something to suggest we simply don't know the relevance yet.

I'm trying to remember whether the X inactivation is the cause of tortoiseshell cats? Just checked and it is :)

5 hours ago, dbunting said:

Wow. I have been following this topic for a few days now and what the hell? Who knew a WW topic would generate such animosity?

 

 

One of the funniest mentions regarding this subject was on a bleeding cool synopsis of the "Y the last man" comic.

" On the long-gestating adaptation of Y: The Last Man, the comic about the world after an all-women Wonder Woman screening leads to the extinction of all men "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

@Zorral

@fionwe1987And you are suggesting that descrimination is totally cool as long as only against certain groups, because of some sort of historical injustice.  I'm glad you are finally coming out and admitting this.

Whatever do you mean by finally? Have I not made this clear pages ago?

To clarify, I not only think it's ridiculous to protest some discrimination, some discrimination is necessary against those groups that enjoy the benefits of racial or sexist  structures. You cannot create a clean slate one fine morning without addressing the systemic impacts of social structures that harmed specific groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

To clarify, I not only think it's ridiculous to protest some discrimination, some discrimination is necessary against those groups that enjoy the benefits of racial or sexist  structures. You cannot create a clean slate one fine morning without addressing the systemic impacts of social structures that harmed specific groups.

Eh, not sure you're going to find much support for that idea. Like we should bring back slavery, but for white folks? Not seeing much necessity there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Eh, not sure you're going to find much support for that idea. Like we should bring back slavery, but for white folks? Not seeing much necessity there.

I think you'll find we already have it. We have affirmative action. We have a number of positive discrimination systems in place to boost women's roles in STEM, and minority roles across the board.

Discrimination can be positive or negative. It doesn't have to be against something specifically; it can be for something as well. As it is in this case, though again - not really particularly discriminatory per the legal definition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

I think you'll find we already have it. We have affirmative action. We have a number of positive discrimination systems in place to boost women's roles in STEM, and minority roles across the board.

Discrimination can be positive or negative. It doesn't have to be against something specifically; it can be for something as well. As it is in this case, though again - not really particularly discriminatory per the legal definition. 

Eh, I don't think we should define Affirmitive Action as reverse discrimination, it's more of a course correction, don't you think? I know there are some who would define it as such, but I don't think it's particularly truthful or helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Eh, I don't think we should define Affirmitive Action as reverse discrimination, it's more of a course correction, don't you think? I know there are some who would define it as such, but I don't think it's particularly truthful or helpful.

It's not reverse discrimination; it's discrimination, plain and simple. And it's fine for that. You can give it whatever euphemism you like, but that's what @fionwe1987 was referring to. 

Again, to put not too fine a point on it, there is a difference between discrimination (as in choosing some things over something else for reasons) and illegal discrimination (which is defined in a pretty specific way). The former is not necessarily harmful and can indeed be good; for instance, we discriminate all the time against humans under the age of 18 for all sorts of reasons, and we even discriminate against humans under 21 for purchasing alcohol and weed despite them being able to be killed in war. These are discriminations, obviously; what else would they be? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's not reverse discrimination; it's discrimination, plain and simple. And it's fine for that. You can give it whatever euphemism you like, but that's what @fionwe1987 was referring to. 

Again, to put not too fine a point on it, there is a difference between discrimination (as in choosing some things over something else for reasons) and illegal discrimination (which is defined in a pretty specific way). The former is not necessarily harmful and can indeed be good; for instance, we discriminate all the time against humans under the age of 18 for all sorts of reasons, and we even discriminate against humans under 21 for purchasing alcohol and weed despite them being able to be killed in war. These are discriminations, obviously; what else would they be? 

Discernment? Judgement? I don't know, it seems to me that the more negative definition of the word is going to be conjured up when it is used. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Discernment? Judgement? I don't know, it seems to me that the more negative definition of the word is going to be conjured up when it is used. 

A sword is still a sword, no matter how many fancy ribbons you put on it. 

It also makes it easier to agree and find common ground. The wonder woman showings that are exclusive to women are discriminating. Just like the restaurants that only allow adults, or the bars that do, or the women's only nights, or male and female bathrooms or locker rooms. Or boys and girls' sports, or the NAACP, or La Raza. These are all discriminatory. They are all not necessarily bad. 

I'm of the personal viewpoint that one cannot ignore differences in others, and attempting to do so is harmful. It is important to recognize that men and women are treated differently, that black kids are treated differently than white kids, and ignoring it will simply cause people to internalize lessons that are bad. Instead be open about it and say way. In this case, it's good for women to meet together to share an experience about a woman superhero because for them it's special to their personal backgrounds and lifestories in a way that having men there makes it impossible to share.

But that doesn't make it not discriminatory, any more than the boy scouts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...