Discussion Diversity In the New Saga [See OP Warning]

You won't go to the guillotine as a martyr for seedy websites; they haven't used the guillotine since 1977 in the western world. But the shooting squad was recently signed back into law by the Trump administration, so that might be a worthy consequence for sowing the seeds of filth for lowly, hate spewing websites.

 

1. Being patronized by Moderators
2. for not seeking out the latest, up-to-the-minute, official assorted list du jour of forbidden sources
3. from the megabytes of string data on this site across tens of thousands of pages, thousands of threads, score of forums
4. when there is no physically mandatory list of forbidden sources.

5. Being patronized by Users,
6. who assign that there is some kind of shared broadcast knowledge base that is obvious as the firmament and blinding as the noon sun
7. that one particular website, out any websites, can be instantly recognized as "seeds of filth for lowly, hate spewing" by a single read of a single page.

I am on a good hill to die on. This position cannot be rhetorically outflanked.

I'll rephrase my sedition. It will last for as long as moderators have not deleted or altered this post.

I have committed the sedition of not consulting a list of sources that are banned from being consulted.

Part of the reason I am capable of committing this sedition is because... there does not exist a mandatory unavoidable list of sources that are banned from being consulted.

I have committed the sedition of upholding the founding principle that someone can independently evaluate a source, and decide for themselves if a source has merit or bearing.

I have committed the sedition that I do not need to be re-educated, taught, advised, warned, cajoled, patronized, infantilized for upholding the founding principle that someone can independently evaluate a source, and decide for themselves if a source has merit or bearing.

I have committed the sedition that I do not need to be re-educated, taught, advised, warned, cajoled, patronized, infantilized for not possessing a prior opinion on a particular source, that I have never read before, that I cannot give crap about.

 

but.... how do you know how much of the site I've read?

You've had this account since 2000! Don't fall on a sword now!

 

You assign, give forth, represent and make it to be understood that a particular website, out of any multitude of particular websites, is somehow to be known always already a priori as "lowly, hate spewing". There is no such thing, out in the ether of the world wide web, as a common knowledge that a particular website, out of any multitude of particular websites, is somehow to be known always already a priori as "lowly, hate spewing". The regular expression, "wegotthiscovered", bears no self-documenting evidence against itself as being "lowly, hate spewing". To take this to its logical extreme, a website that was titled, "notlowlyhatespewing" would bear self-documenting evidence that it was not "lowly, hate spewing", and the website that was titled "lowlyhatespewing" Would bear self-documenting evidence that it was "lowly, hate spewing".

That which is absolutely worth being permanently severed from, whether it is 20 days or 20 years, is the creeping, encroaching, amoebic, undocumented coercion that any one individual is morally responsible for knowing in full, and as soon as possible, the entire list of the latest sources that someone, somewhere, has decided, for everyone, constitute ungood, plusungood, doubleplusungood, or even "lowly, hate spewing".

That which is absolutely worth being permanently severed from, whether it is 20 days or 20 years, is the creeping, encroaching, amoebic, undocumented coercion that any one individual is incapable of evaluating a source never before experienced, and deciding for themselves, based upon their own powers of evaluation, if there is merit to the source.

Happily, it is plain as day that the actual informational content of the crisis is obviously completely irrelevant, or, the actual informational content of that particular crisis would have been dragged out. But no, the convenient simplicity of knowing that this or that source is always ungood, plusungood, doubleplusungood, or even "lowly, hate spewing" saves time. While also serving as a signal of fealty to the movement that is responsible for creeping, encroaching, amoebic, undocumented coercion.

That which is absolutely worth being permanently severed from, whether it is 20 days or 20 years, is the creeping, encroaching, amoebic, undocumented policy of infantilizing the individual that raises a grievance about creeping, encroaching, amoebic, undocumented coercion.

This is the perfect hill to die on.

 

Well geez, if you can successfully make the case that anything is "creeping, encroaching. amoebic, undocumented coercion," I can see why you would be ready to throw in the towel. That sounds pretty bad.

But it is that most jolly of days today, so instead of dying on hills, lets just have a beer!

 

Day N of retaining the capacity to log in and to discuss moderation which is in violation of the terms of service and is a bannable offense. I don't have anything against the two moderators cited here.

Lee, you clearly are doing the right thing as you perceive it. I'm sure your skill in the area will be appropriate and useful in some future event where you need to talk an associate down from some fatal ledge.

The path you have taken to this point is different from the path I have taken to this point. Your tripwire will be different.

These two posts from moderators are two data points that evidence creeping, encroaching, amoebic, undocumented coercion. One was one straw. Two was two straws. Three is a pattern counting from 0. Two is a pattern if counting backwards from 0. The straws preceding these two straws I cannot reproduce or locate, but would be, if they could be quoted directly, examples of regular-expression based peremptory cancellation. Reflexive deplatforming. If the regular expression "X" is uttered in your post, or if you are associated with "Y", you are "Z". The list under X is thousands of regular expressions long and grows daily, and is nowhere documented. Staying updated on list X is a hard-to-forge signal of fealty. It is the core of a shadow policy that shores up a sustainment of paranoia over saying the incorrect thing. Z is the abject other, possessing opinion that is not covered by historical freedoms, or possessing opinion which has been erased in unseen courts and is not permitted to be considered a valid opinion.
This objection I am raising to creeping, encroaching, amoebic, undocumented coercion is itself erased in unseen courts and is not permitted to be considered a valid opinion. Making a mockery of the objection to creeping, encroaching, amoebic, undocumented coercion is erasure. The cautionary tale pictured a regime that excelled in pruning away thoughts that were not for thinking.

Moderators are selected to lead by example and to model behavior that is expected to diffuse across the user base. Moderators cannot be set to ignore. For example, try to set any two different moderators to ignore, and you'll get:

You are not permitted to ignore the post of a moderator. You are not permitted to ignore the example of model behavior by a moderator. You are not permitted to ignore the attempt to diffuse model behavior across the user base. Anyone can express the opinion that moderator posts are not moderation. If a matter is inert, benign, superficial, irrelevant, it makes sense that the post of a moderator is not moderation. That signal, which cannot be ignored, is only noise. If a matter is not inert, benign, superficial or irrelevant, then moderator posts are moderation. That signal, which cannot be ignored, is signal, loud and clear. By the principle that moderators cannot be ignored, which is an unalterable feature of the User profile, I am discussing moderation which is a bannable offense.
That's it for Day N.

 

I admit that I haven't fully come to grips with how diversity is tackled in films and tv shows. As an African American in the US, with children who are also African American, I should welcome any broadening of on-screen representation. Ostensibly, it increases their chances of "making it big," in Hollywood should any of them go that route.

However, as a fanatic of movies and tv shows, I find it distracting and annoying whenever I see ham-fisted/forced/pandering/patronizing attempts at "diversity." It sours every film/tv series I watch nowadays because I'm taken out of the fantasy and reminded that quotas and Inclusion Riders are very real. Policies which I equate to soapboxing, signaling, politics and progressivism (of which I am absolutely not), given how Hollywood talks about them. Again, these practices on the surface serve very POSITIVE goals. That's why, as mentioned at the top, I haven't squared in my mind the good with what I interpret to be distracting (which isn't necessarily "not good"). However, I do believe in over-correction and that there are films that wear diversity on its sleeve. I believe it's perfectly fine to make Lord of the Rings with just caucasian looking hobbits, Shang-chi with no White/Black/Hispanic leads, etc. Anyway, just my $0.02.

 

I have to spell this out. I am doing everything I know to do that will result in the permanent banning of this username. Permanent ban. One or two clicks. It is a simple matter for any moderator. Lee is faultless. Do not insinuate that he is at any fault. You are speaking in moderator voice. You are moderating. I am discussing moderation that is issued in moderator voice. You have stated that what I am doing is derailing the thread. You are effacing, erasing, or silencing the issue I object to. I do not expect differently, on the point of the issue. But you are effacing, erasing, or silencing the solution I am pointing to, a permanent ban on this username. I do expect you to not attempt, for very long, to efface, erase, or silence this single, simple, elegant solution. Your complexion effaces or erases the user's own option of leaving TheForce.net in a final and irreversible way. You can end what you are effacing by effecting what you are effacing. There is nothing more simple. Your integrity as a moderator, a poster, a person have nothing to do with this action and are not impugned by this action. History cannot care less what you do. Everyone will applaud you. There is nothing stopping you. The simple mechanical problem is that the board system on The Force.net has no facility for the User to delete their own account. You're a good person. Don't let that stop you from doing the right thing.

 

Thank you.

Some not-so-good-stuff around the Finn and Rey relationship by the novelist of TFA:.
The Force Awakens novel originally sowed seeds of romance between Finn and Rey (syfy.com)

And, what does he mean by this? Can't be good. He seems to insinuate that Boyega was right, unless I am mistaken:
Later on, he relented, stating: "I'm going to tell you one thing they made me take out because enough time has passed, I don't think it matters. First thing was, there was obviously the beginnings of a relationship between John Boyega's character and Daisy Ridley's character [Rey]. I expected to see that developed further in Episode VIII [The Last Jedi]. And zero happened with it. And we all know why zero happened with it — and there's no need to go into it in-depth — but that's, sadly, just the way things are."

 

Wait. I can NOT log into these forums? You mean I can go...do other things?

 

No. The rule does not apply to you. You are absolutely obligated to participate in at least 10 topics a day.
And for every other thing that you do, you need to do an additional post here. Not about the thing, no one cares.

 

Reading this thread bottom to top was thrilling to say the least.

 

......and what did you learn? What did you take from this thread? Did it impart any deep enlightenment, penetrating perceptions, or deep-seeded wisdom?

 

No not really. But to actually contribute to the thread

Diversity is great and it’s great when people can see more people like them in a movie series they love. However that doesn’t mean a man can’t see themselves in a women character or a white fan can’t relate to a black character etc. I do think Star Wars still has a bit of a way to go on diversity. But soon enough we’ll get our first female director for a Star Wars movie as well as the first female creatively led show.

Star Wars is a lot better than it was in the OT or PT diversity wise. But on some fronts it still has a long way to go before it represents most groups.

 

I think the pressure has continued to increase on them to do the right thing in Star Wars, and it seems to have gotten better. In sheer numbers, SW fans likely are more supportive of diversity than the general public, so I think if nothing else the bottom line will lead to continued improvement in this area.

 

Yeah, I imagine it's a tough call for them.

Because there was really no story reason, in the sequel trilogy, why Rey couldn't have been black and Finn white. None really. Rey Palpatine later on, but yeah...

But doing that may have been risky. So a lot of things still may have a ways to go.

And that's why I always get a chuckle when some people say that Hollywood suddenly has an "agenda." No, Hollywood has always had an "agenda." From the very start. It just a different "agenda" now. Granted, it's still the same overall agenda, what makes the most money; or what they feel will make them the most money.

On the movie side for Star Wars there's not that many opportunities to advance. They have to pretty much play it safe unless they have something "diverse" (from a lead character stand point) that they feel will be a sure fire hit.

Of course, if Taika Waititi's movie is about the first Jedi, then they can play around with that.

On the Disney+ side they can experiment a little more because of multiple shows, like the Leslye Headland show. I'll be a little surprised if the lead is a "single white female." I wouldn't be disappointed, but I'd be a little surprised. I fully expect her to be BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and people of color). Terms and labels are fun. Ha!

And being a black male all of my life...

No, I've always wanted to see a "black Luke Skywalker"; a black male lead character who was a Jedi. I love the Luke Skywalker that we have, and always will. But I'd like to see a brother too. And Samuel L. Jackson doesn't count, he wasn't the star. He wasn't a "Luke Skywalker," he was Mace Windu.

I of course thought we were going to get one in John Boyega (speaking of a white Finn). And Variety got my hopes up...

...JJ Abrams obviously had other plans, however.

And the wait continues. Maybe one of the Disney+ shows will eventually get around to it.

And if there's a "diversity line," a black male or female lead character should be up next. We've had multiple white male leads. A couple of white female leads. And on the TV side one hispanic male lead (Chilean-American), and one upcoming (Mexican). I guess there's Lando, but... "meh." I guess he'll have to do for now.

(Or they could just do a young Mace Windu series and make me happy. But they won't because Star Wars is mean. And what's that Kanye West quote? No, I kid. Star Wars is cool.)

The struggle is real though, yo.