Subject: In favor of reopening the vote
Author:
Posted on: 2020-02-02 20:00:15 UTC
The fact that CZM has continually ignored requests to stop after supposedly changing is concerning and frustrating to me. I'd like to see some indication that this behavior will stop, because it's becoming increasingly frustrating. I'd like to see evidence that CZM is even aware of the numerous comments on each post saying to please stop the behavior they were asked to stop by a vote.
So, the very first Doctor is now a black woman, right? Right, so apparently all black people secretly desire to be a white man twelve times over. Because that's what this is really saying. She'll regenerate into Hartnell, and then proceed to remain white and male for twelve iterations. In trying to be progressive, this episode actually is really gorram racist. I'm really trying to avoid feeling glee that they've really screwed their own argument for why Doctor Who should be like this, but I'm failing.
If this is what Chibnall is going to give us, then I'm all for him staying around a bit longer. Please, Chibbs, give us some more funny stuff to laugh at. Please, tarnish your reputation as a writer even further. I'll be waiting with some popcorn.
If I'm understanding you on the idea behind your post, it's not meant to be an attack on black people or black women, but more of a criticism on the unfortunate implications on the episode, its writing, and whoever wrote it.
To people here, it looked like you were treating the very first Doctor being a black woman as a punchline to a joke, as though you were saying, "The Doctor was originally a black woman? Hilarious!" That's going to stick as a first impression for the post and the explanations for it aren't going to make that impression go away.
It also didn't help that you were mean-spirited about the writer of the episode, like here: "If this is what Chibnall is going to give us, then I'm all for him staying around a bit longer. Please, Chibbs, give us some more funny stuff to laugh at. Please, tarnish your reputation as a writer even further. I'll be waiting with some popcorn."
If you want to say something (especially negative) about any medium, try not to involve people of whichever immutable trait they would have. Even if it's not to attack them, you might end up doing so by accident.
Also you should stay away from commenting on whether someone's trying and failing to be progressive, at least until you definitely (and I mean definitely) won't end up ranting about it.
__
On a different topic, I saw that you are improving in how you post in general. You dialed back your use of right-leaning lingo and you haven't insulted fans anymore. That's good!
You do sometimes forget not to type in the a-word. Try doing a Ctrl-F for that word before you post.
You still got a ways to go, but you're getting there!
That's all I could think of for now, I'll try to comment about the ranting later and hopefully in a constructive way.
If there's anything here you're confused or not sure about, say so!
__
Edit 2020-02-13:This is probably way overdue. I apologize for that.
It occurred to me that I don't know what you do or don't understand and though I have some general advice, I am unsure of the specifics of the problems with ranting you might have. This post is just in case you don't know.
Anyway, when you want to think about how to word things, putting a rough draft in a text doc to edit later would help! Personally, I like to use Notepad for board posts, but Microsoft Word is probably better because of spellcheck and whatnot.
As for how to sound less ranty, you could try doing these things:
Do not insult the creators, writers, etc. You can criticize their writing, but name calling, saying mean things about them, making mean jokes, etc. is off-putting and can make it seem like you got a thing against them.
Like doctorlit mentioned, add some positive points for things you didn't like and add some negative points for things you did like. If you want some examples, you could say things like, "Some things I thought could have been done better in [thing you love/like] are [insert weak points here]" or "I do like that [thing you hate/don't like] did [strong points here]"
Try to limit the number of words dedicated to a section or a point, especially about something negative. For this point I admit I don't know the exact number of words that would come off as ranty, but I do know that dedicating many sentences or a few paragraphs to how [insert thing you hate/don't like] does [whichever kind of point] wrong can definitely come off as ranty. All I could say is try to reduce those number of sentences to "a few" and the paragraphs to "not as many".
If you already understood how to not rant so much, that's good! If not, you could try these tips out.
Once again, if you're confused, let me know.
I know this is unasked for advice, but I still want to offer my two cents here. Comparing this post, and the one you made about scifi from last week, to your review of 1917 on the recs and plugs thread, I notice that you have a tendency to be entirely positive about something you like, while being entirely negative about something you dislike. When reviewing something, we generally give both positive and negative points about it. To arrogantly use examples of my own creation, I enjoyed the Daredevil series on Netflix, but I had plenty of complaints about its use of fake gore and its over-reliance on ninjas. On the other side of the coin, I did not enjoy Fifty Shades of Grey, but I still brought up the two characters that I thought were well-written. Especially Taylor. Thank you, Taylor.
Giving both positive and negative points about something when we review gives other people more points to chime in on and have a discussion about it. Try that next time?
—doctorlit, Team Taylor
Many a psychologist has commented that I- along with most other neurodiverse individuals- have trouble expressing things in shades of grey, so to speak. I’m self-aware enough to realise this, and I do recognise it’s a problem.
Just one I’m struggling to fix.
People were asking you to stop making these kind of posts. What kind of posts did you think they meant?
I wanted to know because I thought you understood.
If you want to talk about this through email, let me know.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that you could also DM me on Discord if you prefer.
It shall be treated with the respect that you demonstrably have for science fiction and your comprehension of what went on in the most recent Doctor Who episode, which is to say less than none.
I find it quite curious that you summon such vitriol for this idea, and given your previous burst sewer main impersonations on women in specfic I am obliged to conclude that you would not do the same were it a white man in the same position. Of course, given that what you have asserted was not even slightly what the deal is with [SPOILER REDACTED], I question why you said what you did at all: it's just a meaningless, incoherent stream of invective, trying to invoke some prelapsarian nostalgia for Hartnell-era Who before all those icky girls started doing important things other than scream and turn an ankle.
In any event, I'd appreciate it if you stopped vomiting up any further rants about specfic, or at least know what the blue shpx you're talking about first. I mean, it's Doctor Who, for God's sake, you don't exactly need a postgraduate qualification to understand what's going on.
Though I do have one of those. So. Yeah.
"burst sewer main impersonation"? Really? That's solidly out of line, and I don't think we'd stand for people using similar words to talk about anyone else. It doesn't help anything, just makes a community a little more toxic.
(I have words for Minh, too, but those will take a bit more time to write up.)
My favourite companion is Ace. Y’know, the one who hit a Dalek with a baseball bat.
I don’t disagree the screaming women bit was sexist as hell. I don’t disagree that I’ve come across as a wee bit sexist.
But don’t you dare assume for one second that I’m outright sexist. I love the diversity in The Expanse. My favourite character is Naomi Nagata, and she’s about as diverse as you can get.
It’s not that I don’t disagree with the politics. It’s the heavy-handed fisting of propoganda these shows try to do to the audience that really gets me mad. Good writers should use allegory to convey messages. Not have the Doctor stand up at the end of each episode and lecture everyone watching. That’s just poor screenwriting.
It’s not the diversity I disagree with; but the hijacking of good storytelling for the purpose of being overly diverse, and creating forced diversity.
Case in point: The Expanse is diverse, and does it without having to remind the veiwer both in-show; and in IRL interveiws that x character is diverse. Result? The expanse is a well-recievedshow.
Doctor Who S11&12 spends a ridiculous amount of time focusing on political messaging to the detriment of the story and overall quality. Result? Doctor who has had steadily declining ratings.
The Orville has two gay characters, one of whom is transgender, and they have a transgender child. Do I have a problem with Commander Bortus, Klyden, and Topa?
No, because- while the show spent a entire episode on the matter- it isn't brought up at every available opportunity, or used as the entire personality for the character.
BSG replaced Dirk Benedict's Starbuck with Katee Sackhoff's Kara Thrace. Do I disagree with the replacement of a male character with a female character?
No, because Katee Sackhoff does a much better job in the role than Benedict, while making her Starbuck distinct from the original Starbuck. On the other hand, Jodie Whittaker just rips off a combination of David Tennant and Matt Smith for her Doctor's unique personality. She doesn't make the character distinct.
The Expanse has a bunch of people from many different ethnic backgrounds, including Pacific Islanders, Asians (a ethnic group which I belong to, just as an aside), and caucasians. All are equally represented, and the show just presents the situation without comment. Do I dislike this diversity? No, because it isn't forced.
The Orville, Expanse, and BSG are very diverse shows. I love all of them for their approach to storytelling, and their avoidance of being overly preachy and heavy handed. It's not that I dislike woman and ethnic groups having representation. I dislike it when that's focused on to the detriment of storytelling or the fact that television is meant to entertain first, and inform last (unless it's a documentary).
If Doctor Who wanted to be diverse, they'd have picked a ginger for their 13th Doctor. Only 2% of humanity is ginger. ~50% is female. Why not a ginger man or woman? ;)
You seem to think I said "I would like you to explain your position more clearly over multiple Board posts."
What I meant was "I do not care a whit for your nuclear takes and I am not alone in this, knock it the hell off."
My apologies for not being clear.
You need to chill. And considering you were nearly banned from the PPC for it last time you were here, claimed you changed upon coming back, and then multiple times demonstrated you haven’t, I’m honestly considering re-opening that vote, because I am sick and tired of your constant crap.
The mere fact that this conversation exists is mentally draining enough I feel lightheaded when I think about it. I do not want this to happen again.
Or fourthing, or whatever the number is. I hereby make it known that I think re-opening the vote is a good idea that should be acted upon.
The fact that CZM has continually ignored requests to stop after supposedly changing is concerning and frustrating to me. I'd like to see some indication that this behavior will stop, because it's becoming increasingly frustrating. I'd like to see evidence that CZM is even aware of the numerous comments on each post saying to please stop the behavior they were asked to stop by a vote.
I'd like to see any evidence that CZM has noticed that flooding the board with similar threads rather than consolidating is considered poor form.
Minh, I've honestly gotta ask: exactly what part of "we don't want you to keep clogging the Board with your whiny rants about sci-fi, because we are all very, very, very sick of that by now" are you having trouble with? Because I'm losing count of how many times you've been told that we don't want to listen to that anymore.
Gods, it must be exhausting to rage and whine about things you don't like all the time. I can't even imagine. And how boring is that? To think so much about what you hate? Is this all you do? Because I'm genuinely having trouble remembering a single actually constructive, or hell, interesting discussion we've had with you here that didn't somehow swerve into "I hate politics I don't agree with intruding on modern sci-fi, which means that modern sci-fi sucks and I've gotta outline all the ways it sucks" sooner or later.
(I'm not even going into you airing your hatred for leftist media again, because I don't need that kind of debate - but what you're showing of your opinion on women and POC in sci-fi is painting a less than flattering image of you.)
If Ix reopens the vote, I'm voting for a ban. Because I've had enough.
Mate, I thought we thoroughly established a long time ago that I don't disagree with the politics in question. I have no problem with feminism, homosexual relationships, climate change (something that I strongly believe needs to be addressed before we deal with any of our societal issues), alternate sexuality and gender situations (which I will refute that I am strictly neutral on, since I don't really give a damm whether someone was born male or female or whatever; and thus will treat such people as I'd treat someone of the gender they present as/treat someone as I would if they lack gender and wish to be treated as such/ect), or any of the other controversial issues that have come up in the shows I have such a negative opinion on.
I'm sorry if I've come across in a way that is contrary to my actual opinion. I do have communicative issues, and I don't always phrase my arguments and explanations in a way that conveys my exact meaning. Remember that massive argument that I had with you all when people were calling me right wing, and I was trying to prove I was left wing? I have trouble with stuff like that, and it got really stressful. I don't deal with stress well, and when multiple people are accusing me of belonging to the political right; I feel pressured, and thus I end up digging myself a deeper hole, so to speak.
Look, if you want to ban me, that's the community's decision. I won't argue it, I won't come back with sockpuppet accounts like a certain individual (you all know who I mean), and I'll respect that you don't want me here. I'm not so immature that I'll throw a tantrum about it, nor am I the sort to dump responsibility for my actions on the shoulders of others. If I'm banned from the community, it's not because 'other people are horrible' or 'it's bullying'; it's because I've been a ass, and I made the wrong choices.
I understand that I'm a abrasive person with a tendency to rant about things I dislike; and I understand that this community has told me before that what I'm doing is Not OK. To be fair, I really didn't understand that you meant that the rants were the problem. I thought everyone meant that talking about my dislike for something in a direct manner was the problem, not just displaying dislike in a indirect manner.
In the end though, I have done wrong by everyone, and in the end; all I can say is that I'm sorry. It means nothing, but it's all I can say. I've made an ass of myself, I've damaged my reputation more than I've contributed towards anything productive, and I've earned the ill-will of this community. It's now increasingly apparent to me that I'm just not very well liked online. I thought that people on Whateley Academy at least valued me as a member of the community, but then I walked in on the Discord talking about me behind my back and saying they hated me. That's one of the three online communities I'm actively involved in right now, and this group is one of the two others. I do need to fix my ways.
Tl;dr? Sorry.
I’m not going to get into your political views because I have neither the time nor the energy to get into that kettle of fish.
We have made it clear from the start that it’s the constant ranting that we’re sick of (and to a lesser extent the disregard for our whole no swearing rule). I really suggest you go read the Constitution—really read it—and if this keeps happening regardless then yes, I am absolutely re-opening the vote.
That being said, I’m appalled and dismayed that you were talked about behind your back in the Discord. If I’d been awake while it was going on, I would have told them to take it up on the Board.
So for everyone who was involved: I don’t care what beef y’all have with Minh, that was out of line and inappropriate.
Per the Constitution, section 2, article 6.5: “The rules of civility and respect do not disappear outside PPC community spaces, or while talking about someone. Don’t engage in bullying behaviour, and don’t say anything about another PPCer you wouldn’t say to their face.”
I don’t think I need to say how disappointed I am at this point.
The impression I got from Minh's post was that it was the other Discord - the wossname, Whateley Academy - that was doing that. I certainly would prefer to believe that's the case. :)
hS
Sometimes you can't even keep the smallest candle burning. Luckily 'I hope that didn't happen' is a fairly small hope to have extinguished, in the scheme of things, especially in light of Delta's comment.
[Post extended to clarify meaning.]
hS
I dug through the Discord briefly - the only "talking behind Minh's back" I could find started when someone linked to their own post in this thread, asking "is this too much?" I understand the "lets be transparent" rule, but does it really extend to never even mentioning anything happening on the Board?
There was some ranty language used in that thread- I quote, "I assume that's what Minh's referencing, but this involves him actually, like thinking so i'm not holding my breath," but that's the worst I could find - and it's milder than language that has been used here, to Minh's face, without protests raised.