Subject: Boy... In my opinion
Author:
Posted on: 2019-08-31 22:12:00 UTC
you have made your entire apology letter (from not even a MONTH AGO) absolutely invalid with this here statement. Honestly, if this is everything you want to use the Board for, go make a bloody Tumblr blog.
That's all.
...hear me out here.
Ellen Ripley, as played by Signourey Weaver, is a strong female character. She’s a character from a film that originally came out in the late 70’s; who manages tobe far stronger that half the supposed ‘Strong feminine icons that keep being thrown out of the room full of monkeys that is Hollywood. Ripley is a tough-as-nails XO, who embodies the concept of a female badass. She’s also maternal in her behaviour, as shown with Newt, as well as the whole ‘going back for the cat’ bit.
Sarah Connor, as played by Linda Hamilton in Terminator II: Judgement Day, is a Strong Female character. She’s a single mother who fights killer robots from the far future of 2014. Nuff said.
Kara “Starbuck” Thrace, as played by Katee Sackhoff, is a strong female character. She smokes cigars. She flies starfighters. She gambles. She drinks. She’s also a deeply feminine character, and not just a badass without rhyme or reason.
Michael Burnham, as played by Sonnequa Martin Green, is NOT a strong female character. Sure, she’s a black female lead. That’s where everything good comes to a dead stop. She’s good at snything she does; is always right as justified by the plot of the story; can frack up (but not recieve any lasting consequences or proportional retribution). All this, and she’s more wooden than Kirk, with the personality of soggy cardboard.
Unfortunately, the last example holds true for so many of today’s “female characters”. Those 2016 Ghostbusters were all badly done comedy, and no charm or chemistry. It wasn’t the actresses’ fault: they were given a bad script, written by supposed proffessional writers.
That’s all.
Crazy Minh
Following discussions and suggestions, this is a formal and final warning against your behaviour on this the PPC Posting Board.
You have broken or ignored Articles 2, 3 and 11 of the PPC Constitution and have questionably broken Article 21 of the same Constitution.
Following Article 12 of the Constitution, this is a final warning to detail to you that you have broken the Constitution on multiple occasions and a request for you to cease to do so lest any other measures need to be put into place.
Please take the time to read the Constitution fully. If you do not understand why this warning has been given to you, please speak up and we can and will talk. My email is clickable if you want to talk to me directly (please note that there may be some delay in me responding to an email as I am not the quickest to pick up new emails in that account).
Novastorme
On behalf of all who have commented in this thread and the above one agreeing that a warning should be put into place.
I recall that he mentioned having an anxiety disorder, so by the time he comes back, the warning may be bumped off the page and he might just make another topic without going back to this one. I don't know for sure.
What would be done if that's the case?
I'll try to message him to let him know there's a warning.
Haven't I seen a post like this in the past? Like, I've only been here for, like, half a month and I'm pretty sure there's been a Discovery talk before.
My problem, and the problem of others in the community (including the people who have commented on this post) is that Minh has brought up this topic with varying levels of anger many, many, many times in the past before. So many times that they have repeatedly been asked to stop, only to start another Discovery discussion afterwards. It is starting to become an issue.
I myself am starting to get rather ticked off at the Discovery Crusades for personal reasons, so I will refrain from commenting any more in this thread. I don't want to escalate this into an argument, or to say anything hurtful. I just wanted you to know what was going on.
Dang it.
But...
Can I make a movement here that Crazy Minh has repeatedly broken Article 11 of the PPC Constitution alongside breaking other Articles of the PPC Constitution in the past (the ones coming to mind are Article 2 and Article 3, along with a questionable breaking of Article 21 as the only discussion their posts generally seem to inspire are asks and pleas for them to stop). Given these cases and in line with Article 12 of the PPC Constitution may I make a suggestion that we as the PPC Community look into a potential partial ban for Crazy Minh so that they can healthily work out their problems as indicated in this and other posts away from the PPC Community (for example in the creation of a tumblr or other blog account). With the caveat that upon their return they will not devolve back to this kind of posting.
I personally have grown tired of seeing these posts appear with a semi-regular frequency and believe that with this being the (to my count) 5th individual time that this has happened within 6 months, something (even if it's just a formal warning) needs to happen, as this is not (in my opinion) healthy for the community).
Given that this is just to discuss action being taken I did not put this in a separate post but instead linked it to the post that has spawned this feeling for action with me. If this is meant to be made as a separate post then I am happy to do so.
Novastorme.
... you make a seperate thread to keep things from getting messy.
Also, nthed on a last warning with possible consequences being neccessary.
~Ak
With the addendum that if this happens again, Minh takes a break from the PPC to find a different community to rant to.
Their constant railing against Discovery has been detrimental to the community as a whole, but I'm willing to give them one more chance to prove they understand why this is unacceptable behavior here.
A last warning sounds perfectly fine to me. I'd also add their violations of article 16 by swearing to the list of grievances.
This is not the place to hold wankfests - particularly if they sound (strictly for example) misogynistic, or like Nazis.
(The latter example is not relevant in this case, I should hope.)
Why not? Because y'all back on yo bullfuvg and we are not obliged to entertain your delusions. Transform slowly into a corncob.
you have made your entire apology letter (from not even a MONTH AGO) absolutely invalid with this here statement. Honestly, if this is everything you want to use the Board for, go make a bloody Tumblr blog.
That's all.
...STOP. RANTING. ABOUT. DISCOVERY.
Sorry for the Capslock O'Rage, but we are getting so b***y tired of you not being able to let go of your hatred for this show.
And guess what - one or two badly written female characters in genre fiction doesn't mean that all female characters nowadays are written badly, and one or two well-written female characters from the past don't mean that they should be the golden standard. I love Ripley, and Sarah Connor is the (fictional) love of my life, but God help genre fiction from having characters only like these two (or three, I don't know the third lady). Take a look at all the movies, TV series, books, video games etc. that keep coming out with amazingly written female characters and reconsider your stance on "strong female characters" (itself a very flawed concept).
And please. I'm begging you on my knees with tears in my eyes. I'll offer you my firstborn if you want to, just SHUT UP ABOUT DISCOVERY.