Stranger Things Season 2: Three Musketeers really are the WORST (Spoilers)

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Astromech said:

Yes he did. Mike= Paladin, Will = Cleric, Dustin = Bard, Lucas = Ranger, Eleven = Mage

Man, Mage/Cleric is a shitty multiclass. I feel bad for Will. 

Also, Max is clearly a cavalier, and at this point it's reasonable to state that they're taking on the roles of the actual D&D cartoon a bit too.

[Astromech]

Nah, level just enough for heals and the rest in mage. I always thought of Eleven as a psionicist but don't remember if that was a class in D&D back in 84. Probably not. I suppose Max could always be a thief. The party lacks one.

[Martini Sigil]

I didn;t mind Eleven's trip to Chicago episode, especially since the season went one episode longer than last year... also... with her so far away, it meant that the rest of the cast had to think of what to do without their wild card available... they didn;t know she was around... but we did... to me, it kept the story honest... so this "add-in" was probably just setting up next year... maybe 11 vs 8?

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Astromech said:

Nah, level just enough for heals and the rest in mage.

Back in 84 that's now how multiclass worked, and I'm not even sure they had dual classing for humans back then. Could be wrong. Dual classing back in the 2e days suuuucked anyway, especially for the mage types due to how powerful the higher level spells were. 

4 minutes ago, Astromech said:

I always thought of Eleven as a psionicist but don't remember if that was a class in D&D back in 84. Probably not. I suppose Max could always be a thief. The party lacks one.

Like I said, Max is a cavalier, even came out in 1983. It's a warrior who specialized in mounted combat. Though thief would work given that she knows how to pick a lock. 

[JonArryn]

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You continue to bring up politics. From Lucas bringing up race to Tolkien to Rey to the dearth of minorities and women in entertainment to PC culture to the backhanded slap of 'dismantling the patriarchy' - that's all on you. And then you say 'but I don't want to talk about it' because, I assume, you're pretty cowardly about it and know you don't have anything to stand on, or you're really interested in virtue signaling. It doesn't appear to be because you have anything constructive or interesting to say about it. 

When out of arguments, make it personal. Calling someone coward over the internet, that's a first. I try and end a discussion that has amounted to nothing, on both sides, and you escalate. And then you make a rather poor try at making me agitated. That post says more about your psyche than mine I'd say. Your constant need of being correct on every line, online, well I could go in further on that, but it's not even worth it. And regarding virtue signalling. Wake up, honey. This is the internet, why would anyone virtue signal online? Anyone who's even checked youtube comments know that. If this was a discussion irl, you could make an argument about virtue signalling. But truth is, I stand for everything I've written, and think I have a lot of things to stand on.

You haven't really taken a shot at my arguments, what you've done is taken a shot at my way of structuring sentences and choosing words. 

12 minutes ago, Pilusmagnus said:

Tolkien was widely read by the counterculture movements in the 1960s, so although it should not be reduced to that, it is indeed a significant political object of study. I raised it because I do think Stranger Things is involved in a similar dynamic: a representation of an idealized conservative past that still pushes progressive ideas. (Kalbear's last post does shed some light upon that, so thank you.)

The problem is that you seem to confuse "political" and "militant". The fact that everything is political doesn't mean that everything is necessarily either liberal or conservative. But every work of art raises questions regarding how we organize as a society, which is the definition of political.

Sure, I might confuse it, I give you that. But it still doesn't change my point of view about this. I don't think all art is political and not all art has to be. Every good work of art raises interesting questions, but I don't agree about you that it's fundamentally about how we structure as a society. The political system is a pretty new addition to human history, if we don't have way separate definitions of it. 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, JonArryn said:

You haven't really taken a shot at my arguments, what you've done is taken a shot at my way of structuring sentences and choosing words. 

You haven't made arguments, you've made unsubstantiated opinion statements which you've then proceeded to violate.

I also wasn't the one to start with the personal attacks - again, that's on you. Saying you are ignorant of something is a factual statement; saying that I'm attempting to take down the patriarchy on twitter is a personal attack. If you don't want to talk politics, don't talk politis, and if you don't want personal attacks, don't make personal attacks. It's that simple. 

2 minutes ago, JonArryn said:

Sure, I might confuse it, I give you that. But it still doesn't change my point of view about this. I don't think all art is political and not all art has to be. Every good work of art raises interesting questions, but I don't agree about you that it's fundamentally about how we structure as a society. The political system is a pretty new addition to human history, if we don't have way separate definitions of it. 

And let's show you how you're wrong on this. Politics are simply the way we as social animals structure our society. The modern political system? Sure, that's new. Politics in general? Happens every time humans get together in groups. We can't help it; it is literally built into your genetics to figure out things like conflict resolution, leadership, dominance and submission rituals, bonding, ingroups, etc. Every social animal has a system of figuring out leaders, structures, dynamics - and all of that is by definition politics. Go look up what the word politics comes from. 

Furthermore, making Lucas post-racial in the 1980s when his family is one of apparently two non-white families in a rural Indiana town would be itself hugely political. It's making the statement that racism in the 1980s did not exist at all. If you don't think that that is a political statement, I'm not sure what to tell you. Similarly, making the only gay person in the entire show an asshole villain is a political statement. It might not be intended as such, but it certainly is one, and it's one that has been made over and over and over again to the point where it's a trope. 

[JonArryn]

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I also wasn't the one to start with the personal attacks - again, that's on you. Saying you are ignorant of something is a factual statement; saying that I'm attempting to take down the patriarchy on twitter is a personal attack. If you don't want to talk politics, don't talk politis, and if you don't want personal attacks, don't make personal attacks. It's that simple. 

And let's show you how you're wrong on this. Politics are simply the way we as social animals structure our society. The modern political system? Sure, that's new. Politics in general? Happens every time humans get together in groups. We can't help it; it is literally built into your genetics to figure out things like conflict resolution, leadership, dominance and submission rituals, bonding, ingroups, etc. Every social animal has a system of figuring out leaders, structures, dynamics - and all of that is by definition politics. Go look up what the word politics comes from. 

Furthermore, making Lucas post-racial in the 1980s when his family is one of apparently two non-white families in a rural Indiana town would be itself hugely political. It's making the statement that racism in the 1980s did not exist at all. If you don't think that that is a political statement, I'm not sure what to tell you. Similarly, making the only gay person in the entire show an asshole villain is a political statement. It might not be intended as such, but it certainly is one, and it's one that has been made over and over and over again to the point where it's a trope. 

Seemed like the patriarchy comment was a soft spot. 

Why use the word politics then? Seems like human nature explains it a hell of a lot better regarding those things. Or group dynamics, or the dominance hierarchy, or whatever one wants to call it. 

And secondly, is that you made a new debate with that. My post didn't even use the word politics, it used "political" regarding art. A straw-man argument from your side. We were discussing political points regarding Stranger Things, and you are well aware that we didn't talk about politics, but political points and different political sides. Another instance of you marking words instead of giving any constructive arguments. Kind of like when three people are having a discussion. Two people try to reach ideas and points, and one person is just sitting there and marking words. 

Your argument before was that all art is political, and I don't agree with that. This is the first post you started making different definitions, probably because you know that you don't have any other arguments to bring. Way to go trying to twisting it, but it didn't work.  

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, JonArryn said:

Seemed like the patriarchy comment was a soft spot. 

Not really, just pointing out that the personal attacks came from you first. Again, don't want personal attacks? Don't make them. 

1 minute ago, JonArryn said:

Why use the word politics then? Seems like human nature explains it a hell of a lot better regarding those things. Or group dynamics, or the dominance hierarchy, or whatever one wants to call it. 

Because politics is the right word. Point of fact, politics is what people mean. It doesn't just mean 'the modern broken political structure of Democrats and Republicans in the US'. 

1 minute ago, JonArryn said:

And secondly, is that you made a new debate with that. My post didn't even use the word politics, it used "political" regarding art. A straw-man argument from your side. 

Are you seriously debating now that politics and political are somehow not the same? Good luck with that conjugation.

1 minute ago, JonArryn said:

We were discussing political points regarding Stranger Things, and you are well aware that we didn't talk about politics, but political points and different political sides. Another instance of you marking words instead of giving any constructive arguments. Kind of like when three people are having a discussion. Two people try to reach ideas and points, and one person is just sitting there and marking words. 

Your argument before was that all art is political, and I don't agree with that. This is the first post you started making different definitions, probably because you know that you don't have any other arguments to bring. Way to go trying to twisting it, but it didn't work.  

I didn't make the argument that all art was political. I didn't say that at all. That was another poster entirely. I'm sorry that you are stricken by the inability to tell others apart, and that your disability must be difficult, but try to understand that it isn't the same person. 

I have no idea what you mean by 'marking words' - are you talking about peeing on them, like a dog? 

I have no idea what your general point is other than you don't want to see political viewpoints which you disagree with in your entertainment. I'm not sure why that is, and I'm not even sure you understand why that is - though it appears that you have Big Feelings about how women shouldn't complain about having fewer roles than men, or how minorities should not represent minority culture in shows. Those are obviously political statements; why not own up to it?

[Pilusmagnus]

Well regardless of the terminology debate about "political," Stranger Things is actually both political AND militant. And you just have to watch this to be convinced: 

 

[JonArryn]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Not really, just pointing out that the personal attacks came from you first. Again, don't want personal attacks? Don't make them. 

Because politics is the right word. Point of fact, politics is what people mean. It doesn't just mean 'the modern broken political structure of Democrats and Republicans in the US'. 

Are you seriously debating now that politics and political are somehow not the same? Good luck with that conjugation.

I didn't make the argument that all art was political. I didn't say that at all. That was another poster entirely. I'm sorry that you are stricken by the inability to tell others apart, and that your disability must be difficult, but try to understand that it isn't the same person. 

I have no idea what you mean by 'marking words' - are you talking about peeing on them, like a dog? 

I have no idea what your general point is other than you don't want to see political viewpoints which you disagree with in your entertainment. I'm not sure why that is, and I'm not even sure you understand why that is - though it appears that you have Big Feelings about how women shouldn't complain about having fewer roles than men, or how minorities should not represent minority culture in shows. Those are obviously political statements; why not own up to it?

I never said it was about the current political system. And you seem to actually have kind of a weird take on the word too. From what I gather the word originated from the greeks, and they very much meant it in the sense of how to organize and govern a state, and in a smaller scale, how to organise groups. Seem like you are the one who isn't really sure about definitions. You seem to encompass all of the human nature aspects in the word politics, which was my point. If it originated with the greeks, that kind of disproves your point. Just check wikipedia and it will be a bit more clear. 

Well, many of the raging PC people tend to blend together. Maybe you're different, maybe not. You both gather in the same safe space rooms where you talk about how high you are above everyone else morally without every actually contributing to something. 

Well, my general point from the beginning was that I don't think today's current political climate has to affect such a large quantity of the art that gets made. Somewhere along the way, I got into a debate with you about semantics instead, which made it a lot less interesting, but you seem to enjoy it at least, so there's that. Of course, we need to treat political subjects in art. It's one of the best things about art. But that doesn't mean that we should sit with a magnifying glass and look for things to be triggered about. 

You seem triggered about Billy now too. And why? There are a lot of great gay characters in fiction so why is this one a problem? Because it's 2017 and you come from the pc pov. No one whined about Omar, because he was one of if not the best character in The Wire. But if it's Billy, who is unsymphatetic, then we need to have a big debate about it. Double standards. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, JonArryn said:

I never said it was about the current political system. And you seem to actually have kind of a weird take on the word too. From what I gather the word originated from the greeks, and they very much meant it in the sense of how to organize and govern a state, and in a smaller scale, how to organise groups. Seem like you are the one who isn't really sure about definitions. You seem to encompass all of the human nature aspects in the word politics, which was my point. If it originated with the greeks, that kind of disproves your point. Just check wikipedia and it will be a bit more clear. 

I gather you didn't read it, then.

Just now, JonArryn said:

Well, many of the raging PC people tend to blend together. Maybe you're different, maybe not. You both gather in the same safe space rooms where you talk about how high you are above everyone else morally without every actually contributing to something. 

Ooh, another personal attack. Good one! I'm here, right now, attempting to figure out what you're raging about. How would you say you've contributed so far? Would it be your complaining about Rey in the Force Awakens, or pointing out wrongly how Lucas' background has nothing to do with anything and should be left out? 

Just now, JonArryn said:

Well, my general point from the beginning was that I don't think today's current political climate has to affect such a large quantity of the art that gets made.

Sorry, the entire world is facing a massive political crisis on whether or not we as a world should be authoritarian or Democratic, but now is not the time for art? Would you rather discuss the war on Christmas instead? Maybe whether or not Google used the right emoji for a cheeseburger?

Just now, JonArryn said:

Somewhere along the way, I got into a debate with you about semantics instead, which made it a lot less interesting, but you seem to enjoy it at least, so there's that. Of course, we need to treat political subjects in art. It's one of the best things about art. But that doesn't mean that we should sit with a magnifying glass and look for things to be triggered about. 

Billy being gay isn't looking at a magnifying glass when he says 'she's not my type' and has HoYay moments with Steve; that's the text and the subtext. If you don't want to think about things too hard and just look at the pretty pictures, cool beans. 

Just now, JonArryn said:

You seem triggered about Billy now too. And why? There are a lot of great gay characters in fiction so why is this one a problem? Because it's 2017 and you come from the pc pov. No one whined about Omar, because he was one of if not the best character in The Wire. But if it's Billy, who is unsymphatetic, then we need to have a big debate about it. Double standards. 

The notion that someone would bring up a point means that they're triggered is so bizarre. Were you "triggered" by Rey being a woman in Force Awakens, then? Must be so hard for you snowflake types. 

Billy being a gay character is fine. Billy being an asshole is fine. Billy being a shitty stereotype is not fine. Gay unsympathetic characters are fine, and there are plenty. Billy being a walking stereotype of the Evil Gay Villain is, well, stereotypically lame. For a show that does a lot more with nuance and depth, Billy stuck out as being lame in every way. 

If Billy was an actual awesome character I assure you people wouldn't have a problem with him. He's not though - he sucks. He sucks more than the bullies in S1 did, and they weren't anything super special - but at least they had some vague value to the show, complete with Overprotective Mom, as well as having a reason for Eleven to save the group and show her loyalty. Billy...was just kind of there, and an asshole with an asshole car, and then got more assholey. His only interesting plot point was potentially seducing Mike's mom, which happened literally in the last episode and was a throwaway for no good reason. 

Note also that the only one who appears to want to debate on whether or not Billy being the Gay Villain asshole sucks is you. Pretty much everyone was in agreement in Billy sucking, Billy being gay being lazy and sucking, his plot sucking, etc. If you want to defend Billy's plot, by all means go ahead - let's hear it. Defend why his being gay as the only actively gay person on the show is a good thing. Go for it. 

[The Bard of Banefort]

Um, guys, I'm pretty sure all of this is why the last thread was locked. . . .

[Pilusmagnus]

2 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Um, guys, I'm pretty sure all of this is why the last thread was locked. . . .

No, it was because it reached 22 pages.

[The Bard of Banefort]

8 minutes ago, Pilusmagnus said:

No, it was because it reached 22 pages.

Haven't there been other threads that have gone on for much longer though? I've seen threads get shut down for this sort of thing before, so that's where I was coming from. 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Haven't there been other threads that have gone on for much longer though? I've seen threads get shut down for this sort of thing before, so that's where I was coming from. 

Nope. Rule on the board is that anything other than in Forum Games gets locked after 400 posts. Sometimes it goes on longer if people don't notice, but it's not supposed to. It helps board performance. 

So far, aside from the personal attacks nothing has (IMO) gone off the rails in this thread. 

[The Bard of Banefort]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Nope. Rule on the board is that anything other than in Forum Games gets locked after 400 posts. Sometimes it goes on longer if people don't notice, but it's not supposed to. It helps board performance. 

So far, aside from the personal attacks nothing has (IMO) gone off the rails in this thread. 

Okay, good to know. Thanks.

[JonArryn]

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I gather you didn't read it, then.

Ooh, another personal attack. Good one! I'm here, right now, attempting to figure out what you're raging about. How would you say you've contributed so far? Would it be your complaining about Rey in the Force Awakens, or pointing out wrongly how Lucas' background has nothing to do with anything and should be left out? 

Sorry, the entire world is facing a massive political crisis on whether or not we as a world should be authoritarian or Democratic, but now is not the time for art? Would you rather discuss the war on Christmas instead? Maybe whether or not Google used the right emoji for a cheeseburger?

Billy being gay isn't looking at a magnifying glass when he says 'she's not my type' and has HoYay moments with Steve; that's the text and the subtext. If you don't want to think about things too hard and just look at the pretty pictures, cool beans. 

The notion that someone would bring up a point means that they're triggered is so bizarre. Were you "triggered" by Rey being a woman in Force Awakens, then? Must be so hard for you snowflake types. 

Billy being a gay character is fine. Billy being an asshole is fine. Billy being a shitty stereotype is not fine. Gay unsympathetic characters are fine, and there are plenty. Billy being a walking stereotype of the Evil Gay Villain is, well, stereotypically lame. For a show that does a lot more with nuance and depth, Billy stuck out as being lame in every way. 

If Billy was an actual awesome character I assure you people wouldn't have a problem with him. He's not though - he sucks. He sucks more than the bullies in S1 did, and they weren't anything super special - but at least they had some vague value to the show, complete with Overprotective Mom, as well as having a reason for Eleven to save the group and show her loyalty. Billy...was just kind of there, and an asshole with an asshole car, and then got more assholey. His only interesting plot point was potentially seducing Mike's mom, which happened literally in the last episode and was a throwaway for no good reason. 

Note also that the only one who appears to want to debate on whether or not Billy being the Gay Villain asshole sucks is you. Pretty much everyone was in agreement in Billy sucking, Billy being gay being lazy and sucking, his plot sucking, etc. If you want to defend Billy's plot, by all means go ahead - let's hear it. Defend why his being gay as the only actively gay person on the show is a good thing. Go for it. 

Your definition of the word was wrong. But when in doubt, backtrack instead, sure. 

I have a vague recollection of maybe discussing The Force Awakens with you before, but I'm too lazy to look it up. And no, I wasn't triggered. I liked having a woman as the lead role and Daisy Ridley's look was great for the role. Before the film. The utter trite of writing and the terrible characterization changed it for me. A good female jedi character would have been great. A trite Mary Sue-type with no development what so ever. Not so much. 

How am I the only one wanting to discuss Billy? I specifically respond to your point about the character. I have no problems with the character. If he's gay that's fine and if he's straight that's fine. To be honest, I don't care about his orientation. But if he is gay, would it be weird to get all that pent up rage because of supressed homosexuality? Maybe you should google Freud or Jung and we could have a discussion about it after. Or maybe they're too patriarchal to be worthy of your time. 

And as for your point about political crisis, I agree. There is similar situations all across the globe now. But if you think Hillary would have brought the world in a better direction, then I suggest you look into her and her husbands past. The crisis you are referring too is brought on by the very same people that whine most about it. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, JonArryn said:

Your definition of the word was wrong. But when in doubt, backtrack instead, sure. 

How so? Politics - like most of modern language - was a word invented by the greeks, and the root is Polis - which literally means 'people'. 

Just now, JonArryn said:

I have a vague recollection of maybe discussing The Force Awakens with you before, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

You literally brought it up in this thread a couple pages back as an example of how things shouldn't be political. Surely you remember a couple hours ago?

Just now, JonArryn said:

How am I the only one wanting to discuss Billy? I specifically respond to your point about the character. I have no problems with the character. If he's gay that's fine and if he's straight that's fine. To be honest, I don't care about his orientation. But if he is gay, would it be weird to get all that pent up rage because of supressed homosexuality? Maybe you should google Freud or Jung and we could have a discussion about it after. Or maybe they're too patriarchal to be worthy of your time. 

You're the only one wanting to debate Billy -  IE, offer another position other than 'he sucks and his character sucks and his arc sucks'. 

Him being gay would be fine if it mattered at all. If they want to actually have an arc about him being gay and repressed is actually a major deal, that might be okay depending on how they do it. Right now, the problem is that his arc is boring, not particularly sympathetic, and if they make it all because he's repressed and gay it's a deeply weak stereotype. Jung and Freud are kinda old, ya know - maybe we could move on past 150 years of bad archetypical analysis and go to Billy being an interesting...character?

And again you bring up this bizarre patriarchy thing like it's a zinger. Seriously, what's up with that? Can you show us on the doll where the bad patriarchy touched you?

Just now, JonArryn said:

And as for your point about political crisis, I agree. There is similar situations all across the globe now. But if you think Hillary would have brought the world in a better direction, then I suggest you look into her and her husbands past. The crisis you are referring too is brought on by the very same people that whine most about it. 

Sounds like exactly the right time to talk about having our art be political, then. Note that I didn't mention Trump or Clinton once - again, that's all on you - but somehow you share the notion that we're in a deep crisis but art shouldn't remotely discuss it. If art isn't meant to be important, why have it? 

[Gertrude]

Quote

Politics (from Greek: Politiká: Politika, definition "affairs of the cities") is the process of making decisions that apply to members of a group. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance — organized control over a human community, particularly a state. Furthermore, politics is the study or practice of the distribution of power and resources within a given community (this is usually a hierarchically organized population) as well as the interrelationship(s) between communities.

Sure, the word is Greek, but just because they developed a word doesn't mean it didn't exist before that. I'm pretty sure early man had clans with power structures and society, therefore they had politics. When artists made fertility idols, they were making a statement that fertility was an important value in their culture. In making that idol, they were also not making idols of other things that weren't as important, and thus making a political statement. So yeah, pretty much everything is political in one way or another. The person who made that idol had the luxury of being able to spend time and resources on it because the society deemed it important work. If he spent his time and the tribe's resources on creating a flower instead of a venus figure, maybe he doesn't get fed or he doesn't get a mate or is denied whatever else the clan deems proper.

I don't even know why I hopped into this conversation because it's annoying to read the back and forth, but this point bugged me a lot.

[Astromech]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Back in 84 that's now how multiclass worked, and I'm not even sure they had dual classing for humans back then. Could be wrong. Dual classing back in the 2e days suuuucked anyway, especially for the mage types due to how powerful the higher level spells were. 

Like I said, Max is a cavalier, even came out in 1983. It's a warrior who specialized in mounted combat. Though thief would work given that she knows how to pick a lock. 

I don't even think it was 2nd Edition yet in 1984. I think it was still just AD&D. I'm not sure if I started with AD&D or 2nd Edition, but it was almost exclusively 2nd Edition if my memory serves me right.

I hope someone gets a vorpal sword next season.