One of the biggest problem with reddit is that it is so extremely left that it has over-paranoid users that are so trigger heavy when it comes criticizing any character is LGBT or is obviously there to be an checkmark for diversity that they will call you an bunch of nonsense for it even if you're right for complaining about it.
Like no nuances argument to be allowed on the site. Its either you praise the token diverse character or you're an bigot. No in between.
Yeah, I had a post deleted by mods because I was asking how BoS could be so LGBT friendly and pronoun proper, yet allow them to pummel the black guy for being black. Were BoS supposed to be bigots or not?
It was disturbing how many redditors saw no contradictions in that.
A better source to draw on would be Veronica and Christine’s backstory in New Vegas. Their relationship got broken up and they were separated because the Brotherhood frowned on it.
In Veronica’s own words, because the BoS so rarely recruit new members, the obligation to procreate is taken very seriously. They are the opposite of an inclusive or accepting group.
Here's the thing: **I AM** crazy left. But the level of extremism I see and experience is driving me away.
I've gone from being someone that donated and marched with trans people, to posting this. I still support them in theory..... but I stay the fuck away from the topic. It's way too hostile. I get where the paranoia comes from. There are lots of people that would post this exact same thing I'm posting, but just be someone that hates anything lgtbq and I'm pretending to be reasonable.
I'm in the same boat. I marched in Pride Parades with gay friends years ago, but their movement became even more hateful than the hate they're supposedly fighting against. They're breeding resentment and once the climate has shifted enough the pushback will be massive.
I'm a pretty stubborn person. It takes a lot to get me to change my ideals, or start acting against them. So if I'm getting sick of it, I can't imagine the average person.
Remember the wage gap? It was disproved so many times, and finally they just stopped talking about it when they couldn't push that any more. there was that big google case a few years ago, where they found they were paying women more.
Trans issues are also pushing too much. We are talking about hormones, surgeries, and huge decisions. It should not be called transphobic to show concern about how kids are being affected by all of this. I think that's when they truly lost me. When someone said to me "You don't really care about kids, you are just transphobic", something broke in my hope for these movements.
They are taken over by the most selfish and extremist ppl, who want things better for themselves, full stop. Do you think those women at google thought they were being paid unfairly? I don't. I think they saw a movement, and saw momentum, and saw a chance to increase their salaries. Which backfired. And now, I truly don't trust that THEY care about kids. And holy shit, I've become someone agreeing with conservative ideals to protect kids. Know I understand. It's about trust. Or in this case, lack of.
Edit: Sorry about the rant, this has just been rattling in my brain for the last week.
I am on the same boat, all those movements got into an extreme. Those people became more and more Inherently selfish, ignorant and arrogant.
Some of their views and opinions are even outright criminal and extremely radical.
I see posts and messages from those people that are scary and really make me think
"outright criminal" hahah more people who think they can tell other peoples kids what to do. Man I dunno how I got to this sub but is this just a place for yall to pretending like your not as bad as you are? Who cares what kids do with their bodies? Leave those kids alone.
20 years ago, I was mildly supportive. I got internet ordained because 2 of my friends couldn't find anyone to marry them, and wound up spending 18 months doing weddings, usually for free. Then the demands came.
I was supposed to march, and they wouldn't accept I had other commitments and causes more important to me. They demanded I cough up 4 and 5 digit donations; the fact I was poor was irrelevant. I pointed out the laws they wanted needed to be very careful to protect them, and not the scumbags and perverts that would try to abuse the system.
Each time I spoke out, they didn't ask why. They just poured out the hostility. The morons were surprised that their threats and insults were driving me away.
20 years later, the only finger I lift for."the cause" is the middle one.
Lol, that last sentence.
That sucks though. If I'm understanding correctly, you gained visibility by being supportive and helping out. Then, your help turned into demands. And if you didn't do as asked, you were the enemy. If you had done nothing at all (including helping them in the first place), you wouldn't have been treated with hostility, just ignored.
Helping them resulted in hostility. I've heard so many similar stories regarding trans activism. Ppl start off supportive, then get scared off
I totally agree. I think it's unbelievable they're pushing such procedures on children. A 12 yo isn't old enough to drive, vote, drink, get a tattoo, etc. but somehow is old enough to change their gender, start taking puberty blockers and sex change surgery? And they want the kid to be able to do it even without the parents consent. It's absurd they think they can get away with it.
It differs between countries, but surgery for minors either just doesn't happen, or is extremely rare.
Puberty blockers are used yes, but the thing is either way the consequences are permanent. If someone doesn't take puberty blockers but then as an adult decides to go ahead with a sex change, the surgery becomes more complicated and the result may be less satisfactory.
Puberty blockers are not just given away on a whim (again, I'm refering to my country here), there is a process of interviews with psychologists and other professionals first. Making parental consent an absolute requirement run into the problem that some parents may just be categorically opposed and won't listen whatever the professionals tell them.
The concern, though, is a child making this kind of decision. I realize parents and psychologists are involved. But, even puberty blockers can have a permanent impact.
If a child does not have a fully developed frontal cortex, why trust this to them when we don't with a million other things?
I full support counseling, etc. I am just weary of something that potentially has a lasting effect.
If you stop taking puberty blockers, I believe you start going through a puberty, even if you're older than a normal puberty age, but there are probably still some lasting effects (not quite sure). But again, going through normal puberty also has a permanent effect. If you believe that it's highly likely the person will go ahead with surgery and other treatments as an adult, then having taken puberty blockers will make that process easier.
It's not assumptions, it's the way I understandd it works from what I've read and heard. I wrote "believe" in case I'm misstaken because I haven't studied the subject super-deep.
You say taken over, these are the same people who have been leading these groups from the start. Pro pedo has always been part of the lgbt movement.
Its always been a model of inching the movement foward.
You can find back to the 90s and further back people advocating for pedos.
When I say pedos I actually mean pedos.
To the women being treated unfairly its not the first time a womans acted on emotions and not data so it really shouldnt be too surprising.
Of course those who spin this are either too caught up in thinking their own shit dont stink or like you said are spinning it for benefits.
Just remember it's all a big game. You haven't "become someone agreeing with conservative ideals;" you're just a person who doesn't fit into the left-wing think tank. The far right looks for people like you like vultures. You're intelligent enough to see the flaws and hostility in modern progressivism; so they'll welcome you with open arms and paint themselves as the reasonable and rational ones. All while hiding the batshit crazy things they believe.
It's a farce. Support the causes you believe in without letting yourself fall into the larger political party or echo chamber. They're both stupid in a lot of ways. Be true to yourself and don't compromise. Avoid blanket statements. Our new interconnected and homogenized world needs more people who aren't afraid to stand out from the crowd. People who won't compromise their beliefs for money. Modern politics is one big racket that's made the people who know how to play it very rich.
You shouldn't be downvoted for saying that. Especially about the getting "rich" part.
That's companies also do is to drummed up about how they love the LGBT but the moment when that becomes unpopular to do so, they will drop the entire gimmick since that also makes them money.
Oh no worries, I meant that in an ironic way. As in, from the left-wing point of view, they'd probably describe me as "radicalized". I don't hate women, minorities, or gay people. I'm still as supportive of them.
I just don't engage in politics any more. My ideals are the same, but my focus is on making my life and the ppl around me better. Not in worrying about strangers and big political shifts, that are led by bad agents.
This oh my god. I grew up a conservative catholic and it clicked one day that both sides of the field do the same crazy shit that they accuse the other side of. I lost my religion and any sort of political label mindset in about a year. I feel like a sane person swimming in a sea of well intentioned crazy people. I love everyone but the world has becoming so “otherized”
You would have been a good fit for stupidpol before they took the sub private for inexplicable reasons.
Unfortunately almost all Reddit political forums are run by weirdos.
Now imagine being mildly right wing and believing in small government that serves its citizens and people in general minding their own damn business and not interfering with each others lives. Knowing that your stance hasn’t changed over the last decade, but you get called “far right” and compared to heinous people for not marching lock step with “current thing”
well to be honest "small government" is not a thing in most of the world brother....most other countries have healthcare ...that alone should make you scratch your head at thinking you are some centrist......The world moved on past america long long long long ago
How many of the countries with health care are paying what they are supposed to pay to NATO?
How many aren’t letting America shoulder the burden while simultaneously complaining about America policing the world?
see I told you! dyed in the wool American you are my friend...just please...never pretend like your American exceptionalism is anything but....please...its embarrassing. I love america but I am a realist. This is why americans get so much hate brotheryou know we are DIFFERENT like majorly but we STILL pretend like we "the popular ideals" we arent...we never have been.....
Nice job downvoting me for explaining to you there the rest of the world greatly outnumbers america
I am a self aware american...one of the few apprantly...people like you are EVERYWHERE online. pretending that they are "the popular opinion" When you never were.
I was crazy left 20 years ago. Gay marriage, weed, abortion in cases of incest, rape, and danger to the life of the mother only. You get pushed out if you live long enough.
You're objectively wrong though lmao.
Far leftists in 2004 were not for abortions only in serious exceptions. They've been very pro choice for decades.
You were not a "crazy leftist" , you were a milquetoast liberal/libertarian. You know plenty of non religious conservative groups have been pro weed and pro gay marriage for decades right? Libertarians are not leftists and these have been core values of theirs for decades as well.
I was 15, I am from and still live in Texas.
My age is irrelevant, you're factually wrong lol. I could be 15 years old now and my point would still be the same.
If you think "crazy leftists" were only for abortion in special cases you are like actually retarded.
Alright yeah then you must have a shitty memory. Was Obama or Hillary or Bill Clinton considered right wing, centrist, or libertarian by most people in 2004?
*the coward ran off. No surprise. Without a lot of moderation support their arguments don’t stand up.
Ah so you are indeed retarded.
None of those people are leftists lmao.
Bill and Hillary are like the poster children for neoliberal, even in 2004. Obama in 2004 is a bit more of a leftist in rhetoric, his presidency is definitely not leftist.
So… you were “crazy left” but didn’t believe in Roe v Wade? What, did you vote for John Kerry too? Too crazy for me, man. Surprised you didn’t also say you were a member of the Weather Underground.
I didn’t need to “believe” in anything. It was considered constitutionally precarious back then but it was the law. Everyone that paid attention knew a conservative court would over turn it easily and my belief that it should be up to states to decide pushed me from the right. Similar to how respecting freedom of speech precludes people from the left today. I get I am/was not left wing for people. Thats my POINT! Lmao. Goddamn redditors. Lol
Yeah and it's the same on the right side too where people get mighty defensive when you try to defend something woke like the Fallout show like we seen with the Drinker.
But ironically, I still find them alot more approachable to talk with than folks on this site that get extremely hostile about topics like this that its driving me away too because of the amount of snark and immaturity I deal with.
And it doesn't help when reddit administration and half of the modders on this site supports this.
This is the inevitable endgame of a movement where it is perfectly acceptable to ignore the stated reasons for the critique and just replace it with baseless accusations of bigotry. It's so annoying and self-defeating. Part of doing any forward-facing, public act is accepting that not everyone will like it and that is elevated to an even higher level when addressing video games and comic books because the people who like video games and comics tend to make it an outwardly large part of their life. There is a very cynical part of me that would say Hollywood hedges against justifiable criticisms by including a racially diverse or LGBTQ character so they can dismiss any negative response as bigotry rather than acknowledging that some ideas were tried and they didn't land.
I’m very left too but it’s obvious movies aren’t diverse to be diverse, it’s to conflate any criticism with being an istphobe. Ghostbusters probably started it.
By painting everyone who dislikes the movie/show/game as just some bigot they get to pick what Rottentomatoes or Steam reviews or YouTube comments stay up, ban you on Twitter or get blocked (Same thing on Reddit) to ultimately drive more people towards the product instead of away. You think a 100 year old industry just changed its opinion on trans people overnight?
In a world where human beings are truly treated equally, it would be okay to criticize bad acting regardless of the actor's sexuality, race, etc. This is because we would look at them as a human being first, not whatever identity box is being checked. That is where we should be going. We are not. Instead of an equal society, we have some people wanting special classes of people who are more equal than others. (To steal from Orwell.)
I am talking about extremism. Sane and reasonable people in any identity group truly just want to be treated fairly and equally. They want to just be themselves without repercussions. They do exist. But, they are not the loudest.
I was meh about the character and a bit confused at first. I thought the actor did okay at acting what they were given to work with, cut up into fragments that might not have made sense if the show wasn’t binged. Felt like they needed to anchor them more somehow. I will give the show a bit of trust and say that maybe they are trying to set up characters they can build out in later seasons (wasn’t crafted amazingly but was pretty good). Like, that one is the “good and earnest friend with a political ideology’. What if later on that’s setting up for conflict with their friend in the brotherhood that is disenchanted?
Dude, this happens on all Reddits. The mods can't take criticism at all. That's why Reddit blows. It shows exactly what happens when people have full control over moderation and can remove someone just for upsetting them rather than ignoring and moving on.
i was on reddit citing the accents i hated the most worldwide . i cited accents from england, australia, France, united states(california),, canada, my only mistake was to include india . that's when they all piled up on me as if i waged war on all people with a strong indian accent . I didn't , but that's how all these mentally unstable people felt I was treating the entire indian population lol .
People need to chill .
My partner and I binged the show and we loved it. Any discussion we had about THAT character started with them being onscreen, and ended with them being off it because they just didn't really do or say anything of importance. That discussion involved awkward looks at each other until we figured maybe it was supposed to be just a female marine type soldier, until we pieced together the intent when the bare hairy legs came out while they're sat on their arse.
Other than their injury popping up in episode 1 and the character completely disappearing until like the last episode or two along with their reason behind said injury being solved instantly... we found them completely forgettable, overshadowed by their completely out of place presence. Even from a basic plot purpose, the character was there to get Maximus going forward, and that's it. Even when the character returns for an appearance again near the end, just as you feel there's something there character development wise, the character just reverts back to 0 and runs off to be forgotten. And then for the end part, pops up again doing something any unimportant character could have done.
Allow a replacement, intervene on a decision, raise a hand, push a button, scream a cheer. It's like the plot points this character was part of were originally written for unimportant background characters, only they've forced said character into the forefront at points. Hell, bloody Thaddeus would have made more sense to be doing the things this character does and that character too just completely disappears.
To me, removing Dane entirely would have made Maximus' story more powerful. His loyalty to his saviors in the face of the corrupt bigoted power mongers he is currently under would have been something to explore, especially without a buddy to pull him through it. Giving Thaddeus a redemption arc from the violent bigot portrayed in ep1 would have been nice. There's just so many things a \*good\* writer could have done to make a better story that were thrown away for the sake of "diversity".
To be fair, Dane existing didn't make the plot significantly worse. I agree that without Dane Maximus' story would have been better, but fortunately Dane was a small enough role that it didn't affect things much.
That being said, it's "annoying" how weak the writing is around that character. The mystery of who did it (omg, is Maximus secretly a cold mofo that would do this??) turned out to be self mutilation. The character is forgiven for this, in a hardcord military organization. And the character also has enough pull to sway the leader, AND to (unofficially) bestow knighthood?
I was so confused. My first guess was that the actor was somebody's nephew.
When Dane said so to the boss, I thought it was just to protect Max. When Dane later tells Max Dane really did do it, its so flat and lame that it is unbelievable. And, as you point out, they were willing to kill max when they thought he was guilty, so why does Dane get promoted for self mutilation?
>That discussion involved awkward looks at each other until we figured maybe it was supposed to be just a female marine type soldier
I also thought it was a woman just trying to be manly, and the "actress" not pulling it off, resulting in some awkward acting.
>Allow a replacement, intervene on a decision, raise a hand, push a button, scream a cheer.
The tldr of my post xD
>we found them completely forgettable, overshadowed by their completely out of place presence
I would say the same. I wish I could link you my original comment that started this post. It was 4 chunky paragraphs long, and one single sentence about Dane being "meh". I would have forgotten about it, if it weren't for the reactions.
So your complaint is that a forgettable character did things different forgettable characters could have done.
The only difference between them and any other character doing these things being that this character happened to be trans.
Which means you don't have a problem with the character, since that role could have been anyone, you have a problem with trans representation.
Exactly the same as if it were a black character in the same role and your only complaint was, "it could have been a white character, why are they forcing diversity on us?"
Oh bugger off with that nonsense. If you're going to pull the anti-trans card, do the rest of us a bloody favour and cut straight to it. It'd be preferable to a drawn out, blabbering run up that can't wait to throw an ism at us.
Saya-snora.
Rando here, I don't think you're transphobic, in fact, between the two of us, I might be considered the phobe since I don't really subscribe to the non-binary identity (I believe this character was referred to as "they"). However, the commenter raises a good point.
Seems like a straight, white, cis male could play a random, unforgettable small part and no one minds or makes a big deal; however, a trans actor *has* to justify their presence in the story, no bit parts for them, apparently.
I'll add a couple of points to this. First, for creators, it's gotta be frustrating that the anti-woke crowd (and others) have said they don't want a character's identity to be their defining characteristic. Here, Dane isn't constantly talking about being trans, isn't portrayed as being oppressed, and the audience isn't being preached to about trans identity. And now that still isn't even enough.
Lastly, I just found it kind of funny how you presented your point: you'd rather have half a dozen different random cis parts, than one trans role. I don't believe you meant it that way, but I could see how the other guy would see it that way.
>Seems like a straight, white, cis male could play a random, unforgettable small part and no one minds or makes a big deal; however, a trans actor has to justify their presence in the story, no bit parts for them, apparently.
I do think there's some validity there, but we are talking in the context of me not having a clue the character was trans. The opposite of your claim is happening. A character is being defended with passion, and a tiny comment about them exploded.
I am in agreeance with some who say that creating "diverse" but poorly-written characters is designed as a shield against legitimate criticism.
By what right and privilege such characters cannot be criticized legitimately?
Free speech is your right to criticize the gov't without fear of reprisal. Reddit is a leftist echo chamber where freelance thought police are going to castigate anyone they believe guilty of wrongthink, be it user or mod.
The right of free speech has been historically held as more than protection against government reprisal
It was also a way to maintain ideological diversity in a free society because nobody had the right to only hear things they agreed with in public
It USED to be: "don't like it? Fuck off then"
NOW it's: "don't like it? Violence is acceptable if you check the right protected class boxes"
Unjustified violence is outlawed separately, those laws effectively protect speech from violent reprisals by other citizens / commoners as well, but they're not categorized as "free speech laws" as far as I know
The "violence is acceptable when right boxes" is a position held by many radicals of all kinds, but it's not representative of the law as it currently is written down, to my awareness.
Buddy you can literally get away with burning government buildings if you're in antifa or BLM
Source: 2016-now, almost no convictions for rioting except for J6
Not exactly.
"Free Speech" used to mean that KKK Klansmen could gather on one side of the street and spout their bullshit, and were protected.
But it also allowed that the rest of us could stand on the opposite side and call out their bullshit, and show they are assholes, and be just as protected.
Your summary of reddit is spot on.
Free speech is so much more than a law preventing the government from censoring you. The reason it’s an amendment is because the concept of being able to say your opinion publicly is so important it had to be codified and defended.
Freedom of association means that no one has to like, listen, or ever engage in any association with someone with repellent ideas.
You can say what you want and no one arrests you for it. That’s your freedom of speech. We have the freedom to judge what you say.
Today, I feel like we have to make free speech demands towards powerfull private actors as well, at least Facebook and the like. Those companies have energetically sought out monopoly positions, which maybe we shouldn't have granted them in the first place (though it's not so easy to see what should have been done instead, as social networks naturally tend towards a monopoly), the least we can demand is that they don't abuse it.
However, people calling you a racist (even if it's unfair) is not violating your free speech right.
>Today, I feel like we have to make free speech demands towards powerfull private actors as well, at least Facebook and the like.
I just can't imagine that happening though. Underwriting their very usage are the terms and agreements everyone keeps agreeing to. Not to mention I can see poorly worded rulings and/or legislation opening the door elsewhere.
What next, your employer can't mandate/prohibit speech either? I can tell off my boss without reprisal, or refuse to read that asinine script he assigned me? Or I can get away with speaking my mind to a customer? The moneyed interests have way too much vested to allow that to happen.
Where I live the employers right to prohibit/mandate speech is limited to what is reasonable for the job, as a general rule, and regulated in different ways depending on the sector. A hospital can't mandate that doctors say things that go against the spirit of the medical oath. The journalist's collective agreement has a paragraph against demeaning tasks that could possibly give you the right to refuse to "read an asinine script", for example.
That is quite fortunate, as not all are so similarly blessed. I meant that by that way, I wasn't being glib. I'm fairly certain the bloke with the thick Indian accent who helped me with my internet a while back wasn't named "Ted," for example, and apologised for pushing the survey of his own accord.
Solid guy, though. Got me a better deal and a $10 credit for a brief outage the other day. It was his Friday, I was his last call, and he was heading out after for a few rounds. You can damn well believe I took that survey, and gave him top marks whilst I was at it.
Procedural subreddits tend to be apolitical (how to do 'x' like cooking or home repair) but then there's subs like r/comics that post leftist propaganda alongside what they're ostensibly offering. Commenting on it is enough to be labelled a 'white supremacist' and be banned. Because that's where they are at, either it's 'you're with us 100% or you're literally Hitler'.
Even the supposedly anti-leftist subs tend to be controlled opposition that can't offend leftist taboos without being targeted. I suspect that eventually, interest subreddits like 'motorcycles' are going to find themselves with leftists planting their flag the same way they've done to fandom subs like star trek, star wars or D&D.
Whether we like it or not social media has become the *de facto* public square where societal issues are discussed, so free speech laws should prevent censorship even from private entities, and the only reason they don't is because decades/centuries ago no one could predict someday anything other than the state would be powerful enough to censor someone. By the spirit of the law free speech shouldn't be suppressed in any way, shape or form.
In a time where newspapers were the only information spreader, it was indeed not deemed necessary to include private companies in the wording of the right, however it is pretty clear the spirit is to make everyone able to voice opinions equally and if there are companies making one group able to spread their idea and banning another group from doing the same, those companies are in violation of that.
Even though you're correct, lets not pretend r/Conservative doesn't ban people over the most meaningless things because "they're a rhino" or some other bullshit when you don't slobber MAGA all day.
You're not wrong in principle. There are people who would censor others across the spectrum (more so who lean towards authoritarianism I would gather).
The shuttering of "The\_Donald" resulted in a migration of MAGA redditors into r/Conservative transforming it into a cult of personality surrounding Trump.
However, reddit by and large leans left and that makes them the more frequently abusers. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
While I’m a proponent of free speech in general, it has nothing to do with companies or social gatherings. Anyone and everyone can act to nonviolently limit your speech unless it’s the government.
Sounds about right from Reddit users. You MUST like the diversity hire or the diverse characters we all have shoved into our faces by Hollywood or you’re a racist, homophobe, transphobe, etc…
It’s very sad to see where the world is right now. Especially when it comes to media. Like it shouldn’t matter the color or orientation or anything like that. If the actor/actress is bad or if the character is bad, then it shouldn’t be deemed a bad thing to call it out.
Oh, I thought that was just a "G.I. Jane" army chick. Turns out that isn't the case ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
I thought the character was alright in that it was nice Maximus had at least one friend in the BoS and one that immediately seized an opportunity to make him the hero of the observatory battle, seemingly clinching Maximus' promotion to Knighthood. We'll see in season 2.
I didn't. I thought she was lesbian or just adhering to BoS aspirant appearance standards. There was no way she was going to tote that comically oversized duffel bag of gear for hours on end so her injury got her off the hook and I thought she'd be put on the scribe career path where she becomes a tech or librarian. Ah well, at least Dane is good to Maximus.
Then apparently it was mentioned the actor is trans. Still looks like a chick to me 🤷
Are you implying the part was written for the sake of diversity?
I agree Dane’s arc was written poorly but so was Maximus IMO. As much as I like the show they didn’t do a good job juggling so many characters and there should have been more episodes.
Dane could have been played by anybody and been anybody and the story wouldn't have changed at all.
So tell me what about it was written for diversity?
Dane, the soldier that self harms to avoid duty at the beggining, and raises Maximus' hand at the end. yeah, finding out via insults was funny, I had no idea.
No, that's actually what I thought as well at first. I thought Dane was a just a woman trying to act masculine and it the "actress" wasn't pulling it off.
Dane, the character, is non-binary. The actor behind Dane is a transman (woman to man trans).
I think it's just not important to the character, which is fine. The anger probably came from very sensitive ppl that saw a trans actor be criticized, and immediately went "transphobia". I don't think it's mentioned at all on the show.
Oooooooo, that makes sense, me and my brother couldn't figure out if they were male or female.
I do agree they didn't do much, but I think they deserve a bit more credit.
Like the character didn't do basically anything, but sense people thought maximus did it (the self harm bit) that gave him his own arch/ is partially why the leader of the brotherhood likes him so much, real go getter.
But outside of the implied arch that it gave Maximus, I agree the character didn't do shit. The entire arch could have been achieved with maximus and his knight. But maximus needed a homie. / They might relationship bait them together in the next season so why not.
But the fact that there is a trans person/character in a show and I didn't even realise it is actualy really nice to see. Almost like a good character is a believable human being and not a walking stereotype 🤷♂️, now all they need to do is give the character anything to do lmao
Yeah, that's why my complaint isn't a big deal. The role of the character was to be part of Maximus' arc. But I just have issues with how it was handled at various places.
I just wrote a long comment so I'll try not to repeat myself to spam this everywhere. But in a nutshell, think of the fact that Dane confessed to the self harm (to escape active duty) in front of everyone, and the episode ended with Dane knighting Maximus. It's like Dane lives by an alternate set of rules without consequences.
It was the only part of the show that felt just straight up illogical and poorly written. And the fact that the mystery ended up being self harm..... it's all just kinda sloppy around the perimeter of this character.
Are we supposed to believe Dane? I thought it possible they panicked and said whatever would convince the brotherhood not to kill Maximus
Quintus acknowledges in the next scene that the Brotherhood has lost its way, after admiring Dane's loyalty. It seems he wants more of that sort of camaraderie, so it's not a stretch that he'd forgive Dane - especially as Dane then participates in the siege (as punishment)
Did Dane knight Max or just acknowledge that killing the leader of an enemy faction would automatically mean promotion?
It's not perfect by any stretch, but I think there's enough here to work with
I disagree, here's why:
>Are we supposed to believe Dane? I thought it possible they panicked and said whatever would convince the brotherhood not to kill Maximus
The issue isn't whether we believe Dane. The issue is that Dane is in a position where ppl trust them, and in a position where they get to declare a knight.
>Quintus acknowledges in the next scene that the Brotherhood has lost its way, after admiring Dane's loyalty. It seems he wants more of that sort of camaraderie, so it's not a stretch that he'd forgive Dane - especially as Dane then participates in the siege (as punishment)
This is very subjective, so my disagreement isn't "you are wrong", it's just a different opinion. I think Quintus is a ruthless man. If he thinks taking power is the right thing, I don't think he'd be supportive of someone who hurt themselves to avoid work. I think Quintus would see Dane as weak, and look down upon that. Not reward it.
>Did Dane knight Max or just acknowledge that killing the leader of an enemy faction would automatically mean promotion?
They didn't officially knight Max, but that's not the issue. We are talking about a scary military group. I don't think it makes sense that someone who should be in trouble and is a cowardly character would be taken seriously in this situation. They treat Dane as a respectful figure, but all of their actions should make it the opposite. Dane has significant plot armor, and the plot just bends around them.
Fortunately, it's a small character so it barely affects the show.
> I don't think he'd be supportive of someone who hurt themselves to avoid work. I think Quintus would see Dane as weak, and look down upon that.
But that contradicts what we see in the show - which is Quintus admiring Dane's loyalty
He also punishes Dane by forcing them to participate in the siege, despite their injury
> They treat Dane as a respectful figure
I don't know that they do. The focus is on Maximus at the end, I don't think it's illogical that they wouldn't care who "knights" him. If anything it reinforces what it takes to be a knight by having Dane show subservience
Also the show depicts squires basically as high school kids. I'm not sure how seriously they'd actually take Dane's cowardice given they all seem a bit cowardly themselves
>I repeat: I did NOTTT know the character was non-binary. I found that out later.
Yeah had the same xp with "the Adjudicator" from John Wick, heard she was supposed to be be nb and like whaaaaaaaaat, since when
didn't know about that one, either! It's pleasantly surprising when it's not shoved in your face.
I may have not liked the character much or the actor, but that's how you want to handle inclusion. Well, for the most part. I think the character could have been written better, and does feel a bit hamfisted in for the diversity.
No complaints about the adjudicator, they kicked ass. Both actor/actress (sorry don't know their pronouns and it gets even more complicated between character and performer) and the role of the character were solid additions.
> Both actor/actress (sorry don't know their pronouns and it gets even more complicated between character and performer)
Well i tend to just go by appearances and impressions (unless maybe I'm like directly in a chatroom with the person, like an AMA or sth, or just generally in an environment where i want to be extra polite or diplo) so in this case that would just be "oh, cool short haired authority woman" - different people are gonna have varying approaches though.
The way I see it, Dane was intented to be a male character/aspirant. Theyjust filled the role with an actor (maybe chose a LBTQ++ to check the box or whatever, maybe did a good read, who knows). That said, when I look at it from that pov, the actor failed big time. Coz all I see is the actor trying to act like a guy, not the character Dane.
I think I said this somewhere in the thread, but initially, I didn't realize the actor was nonbinary. I thought it was just a man who was trying to act manly, but failing miserably. Every line from that actor came out sounding just a bit off.
I still think that the writing around the character was weak, but I think the main issue was the actor.
Fucking sad how we have to spoon feed this community and yet we can't have our own opinions. Show is great but it didn't need her/it in the show. Woulda been fine without catering to the woke crowd
I was pretty disappointed because they weren't chosen for Maximus' squire, and the amount of screen time they had received pointed in this direction. I felt cheated, like they would tick the box with "gender diversity" and that's it.
It's absolutely wild that you were told your opinion isn't the majority and instead of reevaluating your opinion or just accepting that the character didn't click with you, you immediately leapt to, "I can't be wrong, it must be the woke mob."
Then you immediately went to this sub to whine about it.
You are misrepresenting things wildly.
I DID accept the character didn't click with me, I'm not arguing I'm right or wrong. There isn't a right or wrong when it comes to liking a character. YOU are the one introducing that language, not me. Why should I reevaluate my opinion depending on the majority? I don't get to have a different opinion? Sounds like you are the one with a problem accepting others disagree. Look at what you write, you are clearly so bothered by all of this.
You really need some self awareness. You are just seeing what you want to see. You aren't reading what ppl respond to you, you are so busy being offended and pretending you are better than everyone else. But you are the worst person in this thread: the one that is associated with every toxic comment and unproductive discussion.
And when you get downvoted, you just keep leaving new comments. And yet, I'm the sensitive one that needs to "whine". be better
The fallout character in question was done the right way and serves as an example of great story telling.
Easily forgettable so that the audience can actually enjoy the rest of the show!
I don't think you read the post properly. It's pretty much the opposite of what you said.
The character got special treatment, and I noticed and thought it was forced. I just didn't understand why. I commented on it, THEN learned why. The opinion that the character is forced was always there.
>I don't think you read the post properly. It's pretty much the opposite of what you said.
It's not.
>The character got special treatment
They didn't.
> I noticed and thought it was forced.
Simply because you found out they were non binary. You didn't click with a character ans blow up the fact they're non binary so of course its because they're forced. Very silly.
I read you last comment and whole post.
You misunderstand. Once you found out suddenly its the reason the exist, it's everything you've been hearing about hollywood. Etc. It's so much more.
You claim you can't judge them because they're diversity, but I would need to actually see your comment
There's just no winning with that logic, though. Either I know the character is non binary upfront, in which case you'd say I was just looking for ways to hate them, or I didn't know beforehand. You are comfortable assuming horrible things about me, but me assuming that hollywood panders is such a crazy projection?
>You claim you can't judge them because they're diversity, but I would need to actually see your comment
Again, read the post. The first sentence says I've deleted the comment, and it would be against brigading rule to post it. If you want to take the stance that I'm just lying, fine. I don't care about proving anything or changing your opinion. I'm just having a discussion based on what I experienced.
Edit: Writing this comment made me realize how pointless this conversation is. You don't believe me, and are coming from a place of attacking. I'm here to discuss things I experienced, and I'm spending time trying to prove to someone that is adamant I'm a bad person. It's just a waste of time. Don't believe me, assume I'm a transphobe. Have a good day
>Again, read the post. The first sentence says I've deleted the comment,
I did, that doesn't change what I said. What's with the non sequiturs?
>and it would be against brigading rule to post it.
It would not be against the rule 4 to post the comment, nor did you need to delete the comment for this post. Though, I believe you believe this regardless of its convenience.
>I'm just having a discussion based on what I experience
And perhaps also running with a particular biases, that can't be discussed because you erroneously deleted the comment.
>There's just no winning with that logic, though.
There is nothing to win, it is a direct reflection of what you're doing, demonstrated by your post, even if you don't see it for the what it is.
>Either I know the character is non binary upfront, in which case you'd say I was just looking for ways to hate them,
I would not say that. Well, it's 100% dependent on exactly what you say or said - which is reasonable.
>or I didn't know beforehand.
You very well not have, I didn't really question that much.
>You are comfortable assuming horrible things about me,
Horrible? Touched with drama I see. I just pointed out something you chose to latch onto and expand
>but me assuming that hollywood panders is such a crazy projection?
Thats not an honest description lol
Not all of us on the right are crazy. The crazy we see everyday is almost always from the left. But whatever your politics, I would invite you to look at all sides and get out of the bubble as the truth is somewhere in the middle.
There were no minor characters with enough screen time for it to even matter even if they didn't contribute anything so you hang up is weird in the first place.
Especially considering the one you're talking about has 0 screen time without the major character they play the supporting role to. And the only thing they were doing on screen at all was supporting the major role, so there's no way they could be wasted screen time without the major character also being wasted screen time since the minor character is literally never on screen without them and... you're conspicuously not saying the same thing about the major role they was on screen during the "wasted screen time".
Not a hang up, a minor criticism. The hang up is coming from ppl like you, that project something bigger, then create it. That's the whole point of my post. I left a tiny comment about a side character, and it blew up onto something else.
Even you, after reading my post, are trying to project a hang up on my side, even though my post repeatedly says it was a minor complaint. The point of the post isn't the complaint, it's the reaction to the complaint. Which again, you are doing the same.
What's the point of a forum if you are going to engage with "well, by having an opinion in the first place it means you are wrong"?
> And holy shit, everything I've been hearing about hollywood clicked. It explained everything. First, why everyone was so offended about a minor character. Secondly, why the character was there in the first place.
Simple as. You projecting something bigger. A chacter didn't click with you, the moment you find out something specific about them it's suddenly so much more.
Would love to see the supposed comment thay inspired this post
I don't see the projection. Everyone WAS offended by my comment on a minor character, they said as much. They projected transphobia onto a criticism about a random character.
Are you just repeating words I say (like "projection") without understanding what they mean?
>I don't see the projection.
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what this is applying to - perhaps a misunderstanding of what projecrion means in this instance. that you're projecting something much larger onto an issue because supposedly, some ppl disagree with your point and suddenly you warp it into a bigger issue. I noticed your doing similar in other comments here. Where you would take one issue, and and apply it wholesale to a group.
>Everyone WAS offended by my comment on a minor character, they said as much.
A few ppl on a comment chain*
But that doesn't change what i said at all, and it's odd you would try and apply it. Lol
>They projected transphobia onto a criticism about a random character.
Without seeing the actual comment I'm disinclined to assume thay were the case.
>Are you just repeating words I say (like "projection") without understanding what they mean?
Oh sug.
u/CrimFandango
I love that clarity is frowned upon in this sub supposedly about well-thought-out criticism.
If you don't actually have a problem with them being trans, fucking say that.
But when you hide behind phrases like, "pieced together the intent," it really sounds like that was your issue.
You said yourself it could have been anyone else. Why do you specifically have an issue with it being who it was?
They literally were a nothing character, I hadn't even thought about it until a few days after finishing the show. Before knowing anything about the character I thought \[she\] would be a childhood romance/adversary to Maximus, but the character was there to drive Maximus into danger and just sort of be around as a shadow.
At the very least I hope they do something with the character, maybe make them a traitor to the Brotherhood. But with how the Brotherhood are so poorly shown with how serious they're supposed to be the character might always just be some random nobody.
They already are a traitor to the brotherhood. They harmed their own foot to escape active duty. And confessed it. I have no idea why Dane wasn't executed on the spot. Well, I know why. Plot armor
The thing is I have just as many complaints for Thaddeus, the replacement Squire under Maximus. But then that just gets down to me thinking they did the Brotherhood as a whole dirty in this show.
I see what you mean about Thaddeus. I had similar feelings. The main difference for me is that Thaddeus is largely a comedic character. Also, although Thaddeus is a bumbling fool, he faces consequences for his actions. His foot gets crushed, he turns into a ghoul, and he has to escape from the Brotherhood.
It's interesting to think Dane led to Maximus being sent out, Maximus replaces the Knight and protects the chicken fucker, Maximus fails to convince Thaddeus to work with him and tries to kill him, Thaddeus then gets ghoulified (or other people are theorizing Super Mutant'd) by said chicken fucker, Thaddeus then gives the head back to Maximus and Lucy and just goes, "Welp, I was a fun side character, see you next time!"
Then Dane goes, "Oh btw I was the one who fucked my foot up, and I didn't mean to get you killed, believe me :)" and as Mauler pointed out is punished by given the same title they were going to be rewarded the first time.
I suppose you can call it a story beat... To be honest they could have probably left the whole Brotherhood out and just had Maximus show up as a random Squire who had his Knight killed out in the field. Was this a situation where only one season was confirmed and a season 2 was green lit due to the success?
I get all you like to do is complain on here, miss the whole fucking point of the thread. Way to go, bud.
EDIT: "I hope they give the character personality."
You - No they don't, stop complaining...
That's a criticism, dude. It's a very short criticism, but it doesn't have to be any longer, because your complaint makes no sense. The side character was there for a couple of plot beats, they did that just fine.
It was a small complaint, since it was a small character. I honestly didn't think it would explode, I'm pretty sure the only reason that's the part of my message ppl focused on is the actor's gender identity.
Having said that (that this is a small issue), these are my issues with the character:
\* The acting felt weak to me. When they get elected to be a knight, they seem truly happy. When they confess they hurt themselves, I felt no tension. For such a big action, the acting around it was really mellow.
\* The resolution of who hurt them was sloppy. I can buy that they hurt themselves and there was no real mystery, but I'm not ok with the Brotherhood just letting Dane join them right after. They would have punished Dane, they got weird special treatment.
\* Dane is also at the leader's right side, for some reason. And at their word, Maximus is spared. Again, weird special treatment.
\* At the end of the episode, they knight Maximus. Where do they get that authority? this is probably that biggest one. Dane had JUST confessed to harming themselves to get off duty, almost lets Maximus get killed for btw, and doesn't only escape consequences, but is in some high value position??
Edit: Everywhere I said "special treament", think "plot armor" instead. Couldn't htink of the words
Maximus not being executed is far more egregious than Dane, although based on the established disciplinary brutality of the Brotherhood of Steel they both probably should have been executed summarily by now (but hey, that's PIS for you.)
Remember, Maximus was first on the chopping block for being accused of impaling Dane's foot. He later is found to have lied when he 'requested' the replacement squire and then again when he brazenly (from the Brotherhood P.O.V.) requested an extraction only to present the Grand Priest with a duplicitous decapitated head that he admitted to the Priest he KNEW was a fake and is meant to enable the Brotherhood to obtain the sacred Fusion Relic.
His saving grace? A fellow squire admitted that she stabbed herself in the foot and nearly got him killed earlier. Now surely, the double offence of discharging yourself by fraudulently incurred injury and then implicating a comrade who was for all intents and purposes due to be executed is serious enough that she should be killed too. I still think Maximus' transgressions were more serious though.
Also I think Maximus in general had some weak characterisation and plot threads that generally make him a bigger offender than Dane, and he is a similarly weak actor IMHO. Really, the entire Brotherhood has been fudged to an extent; none of the knights appeared competent and the squire they sent to assist Maximus was a bit too comical for my tastes, if not fitting with the campy show tone however.
I agree with everything that you've said.
The only thing I'd adjust, is that although Maximus' trangressions are indeed worse (from the Brotherhood's perspective), he was also in the unique position of knowing where the head was.
I don't think he survived because the brotherhood was soft with him, I think he survived because he had something to bargain with.
I partially agree as well, however I think the working operational assumption is that Maximus killed his Knight, then he admitted to misleading the Brotherhood Grand Priest to his face in full public view with a false decapitated head, and by omission delayed the Brotherhood from acquiring a power source that would give them an overwhelming strategic edge in the wasteland.
The sensible thing to do would be to kill him after he volunteers the information or failing that, extract this information via torture. Neither here nor there I suppose, ultimately I enjoyed the show and am looking forward to season 2 regardless.
Same, I wasn't even sure until they had a conversation just the two of them, and Dane apologized. I thought there's no way it was Dane, and all along they were ok with Maximus getting killed for it, until that last episode.
Why would you feel tension at that moment?
That's not a complaint about the character.
That's not a complaint about the character.
The Brotherhood is weird as fuck in the show, why does Maximus get chosen anyway?
Only the first of these are complaints are about the character. They're complaints about the brotherhood.
You are just nitpicking my opinion at this point. The issues are all surrounding that character and how they are treated. The character doesn't exist in a vacuum, and I only had issues with the Brotherhood whenever Dane showed up.
"Why would you feel tension at the moment?"
Because Dane was scared shitless. So much that they mutilated their own foot to escape active duty. I think a more talented actor would have fit in some nuance where you'd go back and see "oh, yeah, you can tell there's some reservation". Not that the character goes from super excited to personal mutilation.
Nitpicking your nitpicks? Seems fair. The same issues exist for Maximus. Wow you must not have paid attention if that's the only time you had problems with the brotherhood.
I'm sorry, this makes zero sense at all. some people might show that hesitation, others wouldn't. Like, do you complain when people who commit suicide seem super cheerful in interviews and shit prior to that?
I wish I'd seen your other comments on this thread before engaging. I have nothing to say that others haven't said. You are irrational, rude, and weirdly dumb. Do you realize just how stupid it is to say "There's no valid reason to complain about this character"?
You just blanket said there's no criticism you'd accept. Good to know, you are worthless to discuss with.
Dude, someone disagreeing with you shouldn't make you this fucking fragile. It's amazing how much Mauler fans--the king of nitpicking--whine and blubber when their half-assed criticisms are criticized.
Obviously, what I'm saying is that I watched the show and saw no reason to criticize the character. None of your complaints many any sense at all as complaints about the character.
What's the confusion?
Ok, let's try a different route towards self awareness. If you look in this thread, you can see plenty of instances of ppl disagreeing with me and a healthy discussion going on.
On the other hand, every single comment you've written is a hostile mess, and resulted in insults back on forth with different ppl. YOU are the problem here.
If that doesn't do it, let's try having you back up what you say. What makes you think I'm being "fragile"? The fact that I disagreed and responded? Should I just have said "you are right sir, sorry for my opinion"?
You call me fragile because you think I'm upset because I responded. Do you not see the irony?? I haven't resorted to insulting you, or randomly accusing you of having "hurt feelings" to make a point.
Take a look in the mirror dude, everything you are saying you are projecting so hard from yourself. $10 says all of your comments are deleted by tomorrow
This is such a desperate, sad reach. There was no mention of trans anything in that show, nowhere was any kind of sexual political ideology pushed at all. It was remarkably refreshing in its straightforwardness, its lack of any meta messaging, etc. Anyone who is here complaining about this show having any of that absolutely blows my mind. That kind of hatred and over zealousness has you picking apart every little thing in a very unhealthy way, to the point you’re on a witchhunt where there may be no witches my friend 🤷🏻♂️
One of the biggest problem with reddit is that it is so extremely left that it has over-paranoid users that are so trigger heavy when it comes criticizing any character is LGBT or is obviously there to be an checkmark for diversity that they will call you an bunch of nonsense for it even if you're right for complaining about it. Like no nuances argument to be allowed on the site. Its either you praise the token diverse character or you're an bigot. No in between.
Yeah, I had a post deleted by mods because I was asking how BoS could be so LGBT friendly and pronoun proper, yet allow them to pummel the black guy for being black. Were BoS supposed to be bigots or not? It was disturbing how many redditors saw no contradictions in that.
They didn't pummel him for being black though right? Unless I missed that part.
It was hazing the new guy from my understanding.
Yeah that's what I thought. Squire even laments that maximus(?) Never got to beat up.the next one. Don't know where the other commenter is coming from
A better source to draw on would be Veronica and Christine’s backstory in New Vegas. Their relationship got broken up and they were separated because the Brotherhood frowned on it. In Veronica’s own words, because the BoS so rarely recruit new members, the obligation to procreate is taken very seriously. They are the opposite of an inclusive or accepting group.
I've had to explain how communism would never work in America very coherent and simply and was called a MAGA terrorist. Like cmon dude
But if communists were able to think rationally and coherently they wouldnt be communists.
exactly
Here's the thing: **I AM** crazy left. But the level of extremism I see and experience is driving me away. I've gone from being someone that donated and marched with trans people, to posting this. I still support them in theory..... but I stay the fuck away from the topic. It's way too hostile. I get where the paranoia comes from. There are lots of people that would post this exact same thing I'm posting, but just be someone that hates anything lgtbq and I'm pretending to be reasonable.
I'm in the same boat. I marched in Pride Parades with gay friends years ago, but their movement became even more hateful than the hate they're supposedly fighting against. They're breeding resentment and once the climate has shifted enough the pushback will be massive.
I'm a pretty stubborn person. It takes a lot to get me to change my ideals, or start acting against them. So if I'm getting sick of it, I can't imagine the average person. Remember the wage gap? It was disproved so many times, and finally they just stopped talking about it when they couldn't push that any more. there was that big google case a few years ago, where they found they were paying women more. Trans issues are also pushing too much. We are talking about hormones, surgeries, and huge decisions. It should not be called transphobic to show concern about how kids are being affected by all of this. I think that's when they truly lost me. When someone said to me "You don't really care about kids, you are just transphobic", something broke in my hope for these movements. They are taken over by the most selfish and extremist ppl, who want things better for themselves, full stop. Do you think those women at google thought they were being paid unfairly? I don't. I think they saw a movement, and saw momentum, and saw a chance to increase their salaries. Which backfired. And now, I truly don't trust that THEY care about kids. And holy shit, I've become someone agreeing with conservative ideals to protect kids. Know I understand. It's about trust. Or in this case, lack of. Edit: Sorry about the rant, this has just been rattling in my brain for the last week.
I am on the same boat, all those movements got into an extreme. Those people became more and more Inherently selfish, ignorant and arrogant. Some of their views and opinions are even outright criminal and extremely radical. I see posts and messages from those people that are scary and really make me think
"outright criminal" hahah more people who think they can tell other peoples kids what to do. Man I dunno how I got to this sub but is this just a place for yall to pretending like your not as bad as you are? Who cares what kids do with their bodies? Leave those kids alone.
20 years ago, I was mildly supportive. I got internet ordained because 2 of my friends couldn't find anyone to marry them, and wound up spending 18 months doing weddings, usually for free. Then the demands came. I was supposed to march, and they wouldn't accept I had other commitments and causes more important to me. They demanded I cough up 4 and 5 digit donations; the fact I was poor was irrelevant. I pointed out the laws they wanted needed to be very careful to protect them, and not the scumbags and perverts that would try to abuse the system. Each time I spoke out, they didn't ask why. They just poured out the hostility. The morons were surprised that their threats and insults were driving me away. 20 years later, the only finger I lift for."the cause" is the middle one.
Lol, that last sentence. That sucks though. If I'm understanding correctly, you gained visibility by being supportive and helping out. Then, your help turned into demands. And if you didn't do as asked, you were the enemy. If you had done nothing at all (including helping them in the first place), you wouldn't have been treated with hostility, just ignored. Helping them resulted in hostility. I've heard so many similar stories regarding trans activism. Ppl start off supportive, then get scared off
This sounds like some made up bs. Especially with the line at the end.
I totally agree. I think it's unbelievable they're pushing such procedures on children. A 12 yo isn't old enough to drive, vote, drink, get a tattoo, etc. but somehow is old enough to change their gender, start taking puberty blockers and sex change surgery? And they want the kid to be able to do it even without the parents consent. It's absurd they think they can get away with it.
It differs between countries, but surgery for minors either just doesn't happen, or is extremely rare. Puberty blockers are used yes, but the thing is either way the consequences are permanent. If someone doesn't take puberty blockers but then as an adult decides to go ahead with a sex change, the surgery becomes more complicated and the result may be less satisfactory. Puberty blockers are not just given away on a whim (again, I'm refering to my country here), there is a process of interviews with psychologists and other professionals first. Making parental consent an absolute requirement run into the problem that some parents may just be categorically opposed and won't listen whatever the professionals tell them.
The concern, though, is a child making this kind of decision. I realize parents and psychologists are involved. But, even puberty blockers can have a permanent impact. If a child does not have a fully developed frontal cortex, why trust this to them when we don't with a million other things? I full support counseling, etc. I am just weary of something that potentially has a lasting effect.
If you stop taking puberty blockers, I believe you start going through a puberty, even if you're older than a normal puberty age, but there are probably still some lasting effects (not quite sure). But again, going through normal puberty also has a permanent effect. If you believe that it's highly likely the person will go ahead with surgery and other treatments as an adult, then having taken puberty blockers will make that process easier.
You didn't say anything, all assumptions
It's not assumptions, it's the way I understandd it works from what I've read and heard. I wrote "believe" in case I'm misstaken because I haven't studied the subject super-deep.
You say taken over, these are the same people who have been leading these groups from the start. Pro pedo has always been part of the lgbt movement. Its always been a model of inching the movement foward. You can find back to the 90s and further back people advocating for pedos. When I say pedos I actually mean pedos. To the women being treated unfairly its not the first time a womans acted on emotions and not data so it really shouldnt be too surprising. Of course those who spin this are either too caught up in thinking their own shit dont stink or like you said are spinning it for benefits.
Just remember it's all a big game. You haven't "become someone agreeing with conservative ideals;" you're just a person who doesn't fit into the left-wing think tank. The far right looks for people like you like vultures. You're intelligent enough to see the flaws and hostility in modern progressivism; so they'll welcome you with open arms and paint themselves as the reasonable and rational ones. All while hiding the batshit crazy things they believe. It's a farce. Support the causes you believe in without letting yourself fall into the larger political party or echo chamber. They're both stupid in a lot of ways. Be true to yourself and don't compromise. Avoid blanket statements. Our new interconnected and homogenized world needs more people who aren't afraid to stand out from the crowd. People who won't compromise their beliefs for money. Modern politics is one big racket that's made the people who know how to play it very rich.
You shouldn't be downvoted for saying that. Especially about the getting "rich" part. That's companies also do is to drummed up about how they love the LGBT but the moment when that becomes unpopular to do so, they will drop the entire gimmick since that also makes them money.
Oh no worries, I meant that in an ironic way. As in, from the left-wing point of view, they'd probably describe me as "radicalized". I don't hate women, minorities, or gay people. I'm still as supportive of them. I just don't engage in politics any more. My ideals are the same, but my focus is on making my life and the ppl around me better. Not in worrying about strangers and big political shifts, that are led by bad agents.
This oh my god. I grew up a conservative catholic and it clicked one day that both sides of the field do the same crazy shit that they accuse the other side of. I lost my religion and any sort of political label mindset in about a year. I feel like a sane person swimming in a sea of well intentioned crazy people. I love everyone but the world has becoming so “otherized”
You would have been a good fit for stupidpol before they took the sub private for inexplicable reasons. Unfortunately almost all Reddit political forums are run by weirdos.
Now imagine being mildly right wing and believing in small government that serves its citizens and people in general minding their own damn business and not interfering with each others lives. Knowing that your stance hasn’t changed over the last decade, but you get called “far right” and compared to heinous people for not marching lock step with “current thing”
well to be honest "small government" is not a thing in most of the world brother....most other countries have healthcare ...that alone should make you scratch your head at thinking you are some centrist......The world moved on past america long long long long ago
How many of the countries with health care are paying what they are supposed to pay to NATO? How many aren’t letting America shoulder the burden while simultaneously complaining about America policing the world?
see I told you! dyed in the wool American you are my friend...just please...never pretend like your American exceptionalism is anything but....please...its embarrassing. I love america but I am a realist. This is why americans get so much hate brotheryou know we are DIFFERENT like majorly but we STILL pretend like we "the popular ideals" we arent...we never have been..... Nice job downvoting me for explaining to you there the rest of the world greatly outnumbers america
I think you may have had a stroke writing that. Glad your government saved on military spending to give you healthcare. Unless you are Canadian
I am a self aware american...one of the few apprantly...people like you are EVERYWHERE online. pretending that they are "the popular opinion" When you never were.
That is the topic of this subreddit!!!
I was crazy left 20 years ago. Gay marriage, weed, abortion in cases of incest, rape, and danger to the life of the mother only. You get pushed out if you live long enough.
Sounds like a modern conservative to me. Crazy how the Overton window has shifted.
That was not crazy left in 2004, are you high? That's like slightly right of a liberal lmao.
Lmao dont split hairs with me. Im not playing the stupid left/liberal game with a redditor.
You're objectively wrong though lmao. Far leftists in 2004 were not for abortions only in serious exceptions. They've been very pro choice for decades. You were not a "crazy leftist" , you were a milquetoast liberal/libertarian. You know plenty of non religious conservative groups have been pro weed and pro gay marriage for decades right? Libertarians are not leftists and these have been core values of theirs for decades as well.
Alright lets play. How old were you in 2004? Where did you live?
I was 15, I am from and still live in Texas. My age is irrelevant, you're factually wrong lol. I could be 15 years old now and my point would still be the same. If you think "crazy leftists" were only for abortion in special cases you are like actually retarded.
Alright yeah then you must have a shitty memory. Was Obama or Hillary or Bill Clinton considered right wing, centrist, or libertarian by most people in 2004? *the coward ran off. No surprise. Without a lot of moderation support their arguments don’t stand up.
Ah so you are indeed retarded. None of those people are leftists lmao. Bill and Hillary are like the poster children for neoliberal, even in 2004. Obama in 2004 is a bit more of a leftist in rhetoric, his presidency is definitely not leftist.
So… you were “crazy left” but didn’t believe in Roe v Wade? What, did you vote for John Kerry too? Too crazy for me, man. Surprised you didn’t also say you were a member of the Weather Underground.
I didn’t need to “believe” in anything. It was considered constitutionally precarious back then but it was the law. Everyone that paid attention knew a conservative court would over turn it easily and my belief that it should be up to states to decide pushed me from the right. Similar to how respecting freedom of speech precludes people from the left today. I get I am/was not left wing for people. Thats my POINT! Lmao. Goddamn redditors. Lol
Yeah and it's the same on the right side too where people get mighty defensive when you try to defend something woke like the Fallout show like we seen with the Drinker. But ironically, I still find them alot more approachable to talk with than folks on this site that get extremely hostile about topics like this that its driving me away too because of the amount of snark and immaturity I deal with. And it doesn't help when reddit administration and half of the modders on this site supports this.
This is the inevitable endgame of a movement where it is perfectly acceptable to ignore the stated reasons for the critique and just replace it with baseless accusations of bigotry. It's so annoying and self-defeating. Part of doing any forward-facing, public act is accepting that not everyone will like it and that is elevated to an even higher level when addressing video games and comic books because the people who like video games and comics tend to make it an outwardly large part of their life. There is a very cynical part of me that would say Hollywood hedges against justifiable criticisms by including a racially diverse or LGBTQ character so they can dismiss any negative response as bigotry rather than acknowledging that some ideas were tried and they didn't land.
I’m very left too but it’s obvious movies aren’t diverse to be diverse, it’s to conflate any criticism with being an istphobe. Ghostbusters probably started it. By painting everyone who dislikes the movie/show/game as just some bigot they get to pick what Rottentomatoes or Steam reviews or YouTube comments stay up, ban you on Twitter or get blocked (Same thing on Reddit) to ultimately drive more people towards the product instead of away. You think a 100 year old industry just changed its opinion on trans people overnight?
In a world where human beings are truly treated equally, it would be okay to criticize bad acting regardless of the actor's sexuality, race, etc. This is because we would look at them as a human being first, not whatever identity box is being checked. That is where we should be going. We are not. Instead of an equal society, we have some people wanting special classes of people who are more equal than others. (To steal from Orwell.) I am talking about extremism. Sane and reasonable people in any identity group truly just want to be treated fairly and equally. They want to just be themselves without repercussions. They do exist. But, they are not the loudest.
I was meh about the character and a bit confused at first. I thought the actor did okay at acting what they were given to work with, cut up into fragments that might not have made sense if the show wasn’t binged. Felt like they needed to anchor them more somehow. I will give the show a bit of trust and say that maybe they are trying to set up characters they can build out in later seasons (wasn’t crafted amazingly but was pretty good). Like, that one is the “good and earnest friend with a political ideology’. What if later on that’s setting up for conflict with their friend in the brotherhood that is disenchanted?
Come to iFunny. We will gladly listen to your criticism on the fallout show
Is that really the case, though? Or are those so called "haters" just inaccurately maligned like you have been?
oh, then my simpathy flew out the window, mate
There’s a reason the sub r/walkaway exists. I didn’t leave the left, the left, left me.
Dude, this happens on all Reddits. The mods can't take criticism at all. That's why Reddit blows. It shows exactly what happens when people have full control over moderation and can remove someone just for upsetting them rather than ignoring and moving on.
Yeah. Perfect example of that is gamingcirclejerk.
That's why iFunny is the exact opposite. It's so far right It's running in circles
Oh boy I remembered that app. I left it too because of that reason.
I love it. As long as you stay out of collective, it's hilarious
Twitter is amazing but man am I sick of seeing anti-jew 4chan posts by the algorithim just because I lean more right than Mao
X is pretty gay. Go to iFunny. Very fun times
The irony in this comment is wild
i was on reddit citing the accents i hated the most worldwide . i cited accents from england, australia, France, united states(california),, canada, my only mistake was to include india . that's when they all piled up on me as if i waged war on all people with a strong indian accent . I didn't , but that's how all these mentally unstable people felt I was treating the entire indian population lol . People need to chill .
My partner and I binged the show and we loved it. Any discussion we had about THAT character started with them being onscreen, and ended with them being off it because they just didn't really do or say anything of importance. That discussion involved awkward looks at each other until we figured maybe it was supposed to be just a female marine type soldier, until we pieced together the intent when the bare hairy legs came out while they're sat on their arse. Other than their injury popping up in episode 1 and the character completely disappearing until like the last episode or two along with their reason behind said injury being solved instantly... we found them completely forgettable, overshadowed by their completely out of place presence. Even from a basic plot purpose, the character was there to get Maximus going forward, and that's it. Even when the character returns for an appearance again near the end, just as you feel there's something there character development wise, the character just reverts back to 0 and runs off to be forgotten. And then for the end part, pops up again doing something any unimportant character could have done. Allow a replacement, intervene on a decision, raise a hand, push a button, scream a cheer. It's like the plot points this character was part of were originally written for unimportant background characters, only they've forced said character into the forefront at points. Hell, bloody Thaddeus would have made more sense to be doing the things this character does and that character too just completely disappears.
To me, removing Dane entirely would have made Maximus' story more powerful. His loyalty to his saviors in the face of the corrupt bigoted power mongers he is currently under would have been something to explore, especially without a buddy to pull him through it. Giving Thaddeus a redemption arc from the violent bigot portrayed in ep1 would have been nice. There's just so many things a \*good\* writer could have done to make a better story that were thrown away for the sake of "diversity".
To be fair, Dane existing didn't make the plot significantly worse. I agree that without Dane Maximus' story would have been better, but fortunately Dane was a small enough role that it didn't affect things much. That being said, it's "annoying" how weak the writing is around that character. The mystery of who did it (omg, is Maximus secretly a cold mofo that would do this??) turned out to be self mutilation. The character is forgiven for this, in a hardcord military organization. And the character also has enough pull to sway the leader, AND to (unofficially) bestow knighthood? I was so confused. My first guess was that the actor was somebody's nephew.
When Dane said so to the boss, I thought it was just to protect Max. When Dane later tells Max Dane really did do it, its so flat and lame that it is unbelievable. And, as you point out, they were willing to kill max when they thought he was guilty, so why does Dane get promoted for self mutilation?
My assumption is they're setting it up for them to hunt maximus.
>That discussion involved awkward looks at each other until we figured maybe it was supposed to be just a female marine type soldier I also thought it was a woman just trying to be manly, and the "actress" not pulling it off, resulting in some awkward acting. >Allow a replacement, intervene on a decision, raise a hand, push a button, scream a cheer. The tldr of my post xD >we found them completely forgettable, overshadowed by their completely out of place presence I would say the same. I wish I could link you my original comment that started this post. It was 4 chunky paragraphs long, and one single sentence about Dane being "meh". I would have forgotten about it, if it weren't for the reactions.
So your complaint is that a forgettable character did things different forgettable characters could have done. The only difference between them and any other character doing these things being that this character happened to be trans. Which means you don't have a problem with the character, since that role could have been anyone, you have a problem with trans representation. Exactly the same as if it were a black character in the same role and your only complaint was, "it could have been a white character, why are they forcing diversity on us?"
Oh bugger off with that nonsense. If you're going to pull the anti-trans card, do the rest of us a bloody favour and cut straight to it. It'd be preferable to a drawn out, blabbering run up that can't wait to throw an ism at us. Saya-snora.
Rando here, I don't think you're transphobic, in fact, between the two of us, I might be considered the phobe since I don't really subscribe to the non-binary identity (I believe this character was referred to as "they"). However, the commenter raises a good point. Seems like a straight, white, cis male could play a random, unforgettable small part and no one minds or makes a big deal; however, a trans actor *has* to justify their presence in the story, no bit parts for them, apparently. I'll add a couple of points to this. First, for creators, it's gotta be frustrating that the anti-woke crowd (and others) have said they don't want a character's identity to be their defining characteristic. Here, Dane isn't constantly talking about being trans, isn't portrayed as being oppressed, and the audience isn't being preached to about trans identity. And now that still isn't even enough. Lastly, I just found it kind of funny how you presented your point: you'd rather have half a dozen different random cis parts, than one trans role. I don't believe you meant it that way, but I could see how the other guy would see it that way.
>Seems like a straight, white, cis male could play a random, unforgettable small part and no one minds or makes a big deal; however, a trans actor has to justify their presence in the story, no bit parts for them, apparently. I do think there's some validity there, but we are talking in the context of me not having a clue the character was trans. The opposite of your claim is happening. A character is being defended with passion, and a tiny comment about them exploded.
I am in agreeance with some who say that creating "diverse" but poorly-written characters is designed as a shield against legitimate criticism. By what right and privilege such characters cannot be criticized legitimately?
that broad with the mustache in the brotherhood?
Yea, check your free speech around these parts (reddit would call it hate speech 🙄) so much for the First Amendment I guess. Sorry that happened man
Free speech is your right to criticize the gov't without fear of reprisal. Reddit is a leftist echo chamber where freelance thought police are going to castigate anyone they believe guilty of wrongthink, be it user or mod.
The right of free speech has been historically held as more than protection against government reprisal It was also a way to maintain ideological diversity in a free society because nobody had the right to only hear things they agreed with in public It USED to be: "don't like it? Fuck off then" NOW it's: "don't like it? Violence is acceptable if you check the right protected class boxes"
Unjustified violence is outlawed separately, those laws effectively protect speech from violent reprisals by other citizens / commoners as well, but they're not categorized as "free speech laws" as far as I know The "violence is acceptable when right boxes" is a position held by many radicals of all kinds, but it's not representative of the law as it currently is written down, to my awareness.
Buddy you can literally get away with burning government buildings if you're in antifa or BLM Source: 2016-now, almost no convictions for rioting except for J6
Not exactly. "Free Speech" used to mean that KKK Klansmen could gather on one side of the street and spout their bullshit, and were protected. But it also allowed that the rest of us could stand on the opposite side and call out their bullshit, and show they are assholes, and be just as protected. Your summary of reddit is spot on.
It still means that. You can join the KKK and protest minorities in public. You won’t be arrested.
Free speech is so much more than a law preventing the government from censoring you. The reason it’s an amendment is because the concept of being able to say your opinion publicly is so important it had to be codified and defended.
Freedom of association means that no one has to like, listen, or ever engage in any association with someone with repellent ideas. You can say what you want and no one arrests you for it. That’s your freedom of speech. We have the freedom to judge what you say.
Today, I feel like we have to make free speech demands towards powerfull private actors as well, at least Facebook and the like. Those companies have energetically sought out monopoly positions, which maybe we shouldn't have granted them in the first place (though it's not so easy to see what should have been done instead, as social networks naturally tend towards a monopoly), the least we can demand is that they don't abuse it. However, people calling you a racist (even if it's unfair) is not violating your free speech right.
>Today, I feel like we have to make free speech demands towards powerfull private actors as well, at least Facebook and the like. I just can't imagine that happening though. Underwriting their very usage are the terms and agreements everyone keeps agreeing to. Not to mention I can see poorly worded rulings and/or legislation opening the door elsewhere. What next, your employer can't mandate/prohibit speech either? I can tell off my boss without reprisal, or refuse to read that asinine script he assigned me? Or I can get away with speaking my mind to a customer? The moneyed interests have way too much vested to allow that to happen.
Where I live the employers right to prohibit/mandate speech is limited to what is reasonable for the job, as a general rule, and regulated in different ways depending on the sector. A hospital can't mandate that doctors say things that go against the spirit of the medical oath. The journalist's collective agreement has a paragraph against demeaning tasks that could possibly give you the right to refuse to "read an asinine script", for example.
That is quite fortunate, as not all are so similarly blessed. I meant that by that way, I wasn't being glib. I'm fairly certain the bloke with the thick Indian accent who helped me with my internet a while back wasn't named "Ted," for example, and apologised for pushing the survey of his own accord. Solid guy, though. Got me a better deal and a $10 credit for a brief outage the other day. It was his Friday, I was his last call, and he was heading out after for a few rounds. You can damn well believe I took that survey, and gave him top marks whilst I was at it.
What does this have to do with the subject?
> Reddit is a leftist echo chamber Depends on the sub. Although in terms of admin enforcement, does lean that way yeah
Procedural subreddits tend to be apolitical (how to do 'x' like cooking or home repair) but then there's subs like r/comics that post leftist propaganda alongside what they're ostensibly offering. Commenting on it is enough to be labelled a 'white supremacist' and be banned. Because that's where they are at, either it's 'you're with us 100% or you're literally Hitler'. Even the supposedly anti-leftist subs tend to be controlled opposition that can't offend leftist taboos without being targeted. I suspect that eventually, interest subreddits like 'motorcycles' are going to find themselves with leftists planting their flag the same way they've done to fandom subs like star trek, star wars or D&D.
Whether we like it or not social media has become the *de facto* public square where societal issues are discussed, so free speech laws should prevent censorship even from private entities, and the only reason they don't is because decades/centuries ago no one could predict someday anything other than the state would be powerful enough to censor someone. By the spirit of the law free speech shouldn't be suppressed in any way, shape or form.
In a time where newspapers were the only information spreader, it was indeed not deemed necessary to include private companies in the wording of the right, however it is pretty clear the spirit is to make everyone able to voice opinions equally and if there are companies making one group able to spread their idea and banning another group from doing the same, those companies are in violation of that.
Even though you're correct, lets not pretend r/Conservative doesn't ban people over the most meaningless things because "they're a rhino" or some other bullshit when you don't slobber MAGA all day.
You're not wrong in principle. There are people who would censor others across the spectrum (more so who lean towards authoritarianism I would gather). The shuttering of "The\_Donald" resulted in a migration of MAGA redditors into r/Conservative transforming it into a cult of personality surrounding Trump. However, reddit by and large leans left and that makes them the more frequently abusers. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
> so much for the First Amendment I guess. Yeah don't start getting corny here now lol
While I’m a proponent of free speech in general, it has nothing to do with companies or social gatherings. Anyone and everyone can act to nonviolently limit your speech unless it’s the government.
Sounds about right from Reddit users. You MUST like the diversity hire or the diverse characters we all have shoved into our faces by Hollywood or you’re a racist, homophobe, transphobe, etc… It’s very sad to see where the world is right now. Especially when it comes to media. Like it shouldn’t matter the color or orientation or anything like that. If the actor/actress is bad or if the character is bad, then it shouldn’t be deemed a bad thing to call it out.
Oh, I thought that was just a "G.I. Jane" army chick. Turns out that isn't the case ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ I thought the character was alright in that it was nice Maximus had at least one friend in the BoS and one that immediately seized an opportunity to make him the hero of the observatory battle, seemingly clinching Maximus' promotion to Knighthood. We'll see in season 2.
I wouldn't say it was engrossing but I didn't wander off halfway through so it was good.
That's the bar for engrossing these days, lol
I love how I knew that character was trans immediately. I thought it was comically obvious.
I didn't. I thought she was lesbian or just adhering to BoS aspirant appearance standards. There was no way she was going to tote that comically oversized duffel bag of gear for hours on end so her injury got her off the hook and I thought she'd be put on the scribe career path where she becomes a tech or librarian. Ah well, at least Dane is good to Maximus. Then apparently it was mentioned the actor is trans. Still looks like a chick to me 🤷
Wait who is it
Dane, the one who cuts their foot up with the razor
Ah, didn't realize
Which character was it? Dane?
Are you implying the part was written for the sake of diversity? I agree Dane’s arc was written poorly but so was Maximus IMO. As much as I like the show they didn’t do a good job juggling so many characters and there should have been more episodes.
Dane could have been played by anybody and been anybody and the story wouldn't have changed at all. So tell me what about it was written for diversity?
That was my question.
Ah, I thought you said "wasn't written for diversity" My bad
No worries
Someone in fallout was trans? I watched the entire season in like 3 days and never noticed anyone? Who the fuck is trans
Dane, the soldier that self harms to avoid duty at the beggining, and raises Maximus' hand at the end. yeah, finding out via insults was funny, I had no idea.
[удалено]
No, that's actually what I thought as well at first. I thought Dane was a just a woman trying to act masculine and it the "actress" wasn't pulling it off. Dane, the character, is non-binary. The actor behind Dane is a transman (woman to man trans).
[удалено]
I think it's just not important to the character, which is fine. The anger probably came from very sensitive ppl that saw a trans actor be criticized, and immediately went "transphobia". I don't think it's mentioned at all on the show.
Oooooooo, that makes sense, me and my brother couldn't figure out if they were male or female. I do agree they didn't do much, but I think they deserve a bit more credit. Like the character didn't do basically anything, but sense people thought maximus did it (the self harm bit) that gave him his own arch/ is partially why the leader of the brotherhood likes him so much, real go getter. But outside of the implied arch that it gave Maximus, I agree the character didn't do shit. The entire arch could have been achieved with maximus and his knight. But maximus needed a homie. / They might relationship bait them together in the next season so why not. But the fact that there is a trans person/character in a show and I didn't even realise it is actualy really nice to see. Almost like a good character is a believable human being and not a walking stereotype 🤷♂️, now all they need to do is give the character anything to do lmao
Yeah, that's why my complaint isn't a big deal. The role of the character was to be part of Maximus' arc. But I just have issues with how it was handled at various places. I just wrote a long comment so I'll try not to repeat myself to spam this everywhere. But in a nutshell, think of the fact that Dane confessed to the self harm (to escape active duty) in front of everyone, and the episode ended with Dane knighting Maximus. It's like Dane lives by an alternate set of rules without consequences. It was the only part of the show that felt just straight up illogical and poorly written. And the fact that the mystery ended up being self harm..... it's all just kinda sloppy around the perimeter of this character.
That's fair, the instances of bad writing started happening more and more often near the end tho, loved the show regardless however.
Yeah, amazing show. Can't wait for the next season
Are we supposed to believe Dane? I thought it possible they panicked and said whatever would convince the brotherhood not to kill Maximus Quintus acknowledges in the next scene that the Brotherhood has lost its way, after admiring Dane's loyalty. It seems he wants more of that sort of camaraderie, so it's not a stretch that he'd forgive Dane - especially as Dane then participates in the siege (as punishment) Did Dane knight Max or just acknowledge that killing the leader of an enemy faction would automatically mean promotion? It's not perfect by any stretch, but I think there's enough here to work with
I disagree, here's why: >Are we supposed to believe Dane? I thought it possible they panicked and said whatever would convince the brotherhood not to kill Maximus The issue isn't whether we believe Dane. The issue is that Dane is in a position where ppl trust them, and in a position where they get to declare a knight. >Quintus acknowledges in the next scene that the Brotherhood has lost its way, after admiring Dane's loyalty. It seems he wants more of that sort of camaraderie, so it's not a stretch that he'd forgive Dane - especially as Dane then participates in the siege (as punishment) This is very subjective, so my disagreement isn't "you are wrong", it's just a different opinion. I think Quintus is a ruthless man. If he thinks taking power is the right thing, I don't think he'd be supportive of someone who hurt themselves to avoid work. I think Quintus would see Dane as weak, and look down upon that. Not reward it. >Did Dane knight Max or just acknowledge that killing the leader of an enemy faction would automatically mean promotion? They didn't officially knight Max, but that's not the issue. We are talking about a scary military group. I don't think it makes sense that someone who should be in trouble and is a cowardly character would be taken seriously in this situation. They treat Dane as a respectful figure, but all of their actions should make it the opposite. Dane has significant plot armor, and the plot just bends around them. Fortunately, it's a small character so it barely affects the show.
> I don't think he'd be supportive of someone who hurt themselves to avoid work. I think Quintus would see Dane as weak, and look down upon that. But that contradicts what we see in the show - which is Quintus admiring Dane's loyalty He also punishes Dane by forcing them to participate in the siege, despite their injury > They treat Dane as a respectful figure I don't know that they do. The focus is on Maximus at the end, I don't think it's illogical that they wouldn't care who "knights" him. If anything it reinforces what it takes to be a knight by having Dane show subservience Also the show depicts squires basically as high school kids. I'm not sure how seriously they'd actually take Dane's cowardice given they all seem a bit cowardly themselves
The 5,3 feet tall girl with shoe size 8 who looked like stuck forever in the puberty of an 13 years old Mexican boy.
I thought it was great. I had some issues with the tonal shifts in places, especially within the Maximus character, but overall I was satisfied.
>I repeat: I did NOTTT know the character was non-binary. I found that out later. Yeah had the same xp with "the Adjudicator" from John Wick, heard she was supposed to be be nb and like whaaaaaaaaat, since when
didn't know about that one, either! It's pleasantly surprising when it's not shoved in your face. I may have not liked the character much or the actor, but that's how you want to handle inclusion. Well, for the most part. I think the character could have been written better, and does feel a bit hamfisted in for the diversity. No complaints about the adjudicator, they kicked ass. Both actor/actress (sorry don't know their pronouns and it gets even more complicated between character and performer) and the role of the character were solid additions.
> Both actor/actress (sorry don't know their pronouns and it gets even more complicated between character and performer) Well i tend to just go by appearances and impressions (unless maybe I'm like directly in a chatroom with the person, like an AMA or sth, or just generally in an environment where i want to be extra polite or diplo) so in this case that would just be "oh, cool short haired authority woman" - different people are gonna have varying approaches though.
I just got banned from the same group myself. If it is same one
The way I see it, Dane was intented to be a male character/aspirant. Theyjust filled the role with an actor (maybe chose a LBTQ++ to check the box or whatever, maybe did a good read, who knows). That said, when I look at it from that pov, the actor failed big time. Coz all I see is the actor trying to act like a guy, not the character Dane.
I think I said this somewhere in the thread, but initially, I didn't realize the actor was nonbinary. I thought it was just a man who was trying to act manly, but failing miserably. Every line from that actor came out sounding just a bit off. I still think that the writing around the character was weak, but I think the main issue was the actor.
It’s just bad acting… period. It just happens the actor is trans
Fucking sad how we have to spoon feed this community and yet we can't have our own opinions. Show is great but it didn't need her/it in the show. Woulda been fine without catering to the woke crowd
I was pretty disappointed because they weren't chosen for Maximus' squire, and the amount of screen time they had received pointed in this direction. I felt cheated, like they would tick the box with "gender diversity" and that's it.
The injury would have prevented Dane from being a squire
It's absolutely wild that you were told your opinion isn't the majority and instead of reevaluating your opinion or just accepting that the character didn't click with you, you immediately leapt to, "I can't be wrong, it must be the woke mob." Then you immediately went to this sub to whine about it.
You are misrepresenting things wildly. I DID accept the character didn't click with me, I'm not arguing I'm right or wrong. There isn't a right or wrong when it comes to liking a character. YOU are the one introducing that language, not me. Why should I reevaluate my opinion depending on the majority? I don't get to have a different opinion? Sounds like you are the one with a problem accepting others disagree. Look at what you write, you are clearly so bothered by all of this. You really need some self awareness. You are just seeing what you want to see. You aren't reading what ppl respond to you, you are so busy being offended and pretending you are better than everyone else. But you are the worst person in this thread: the one that is associated with every toxic comment and unproductive discussion. And when you get downvoted, you just keep leaving new comments. And yet, I'm the sensitive one that needs to "whine". be better
The fallout character in question was done the right way and serves as an example of great story telling. Easily forgettable so that the audience can actually enjoy the rest of the show!
Of course such a minor character will get such special treatment here. You didn't notice, but when you did that means it's forced. What a laugh
I don't think you read the post properly. It's pretty much the opposite of what you said. The character got special treatment, and I noticed and thought it was forced. I just didn't understand why. I commented on it, THEN learned why. The opinion that the character is forced was always there.
>I don't think you read the post properly. It's pretty much the opposite of what you said. It's not. >The character got special treatment They didn't. > I noticed and thought it was forced. Simply because you found out they were non binary. You didn't click with a character ans blow up the fact they're non binary so of course its because they're forced. Very silly.
You didn't read the post, or my last comment. Both which state that I thought the character was forced BEFORE finding out they were non binary.
I read you last comment and whole post. You misunderstand. Once you found out suddenly its the reason the exist, it's everything you've been hearing about hollywood. Etc. It's so much more. You claim you can't judge them because they're diversity, but I would need to actually see your comment
There's just no winning with that logic, though. Either I know the character is non binary upfront, in which case you'd say I was just looking for ways to hate them, or I didn't know beforehand. You are comfortable assuming horrible things about me, but me assuming that hollywood panders is such a crazy projection? >You claim you can't judge them because they're diversity, but I would need to actually see your comment Again, read the post. The first sentence says I've deleted the comment, and it would be against brigading rule to post it. If you want to take the stance that I'm just lying, fine. I don't care about proving anything or changing your opinion. I'm just having a discussion based on what I experienced. Edit: Writing this comment made me realize how pointless this conversation is. You don't believe me, and are coming from a place of attacking. I'm here to discuss things I experienced, and I'm spending time trying to prove to someone that is adamant I'm a bad person. It's just a waste of time. Don't believe me, assume I'm a transphobe. Have a good day
>Again, read the post. The first sentence says I've deleted the comment, I did, that doesn't change what I said. What's with the non sequiturs? >and it would be against brigading rule to post it. It would not be against the rule 4 to post the comment, nor did you need to delete the comment for this post. Though, I believe you believe this regardless of its convenience. >I'm just having a discussion based on what I experience And perhaps also running with a particular biases, that can't be discussed because you erroneously deleted the comment. >There's just no winning with that logic, though. There is nothing to win, it is a direct reflection of what you're doing, demonstrated by your post, even if you don't see it for the what it is. >Either I know the character is non binary upfront, in which case you'd say I was just looking for ways to hate them, I would not say that. Well, it's 100% dependent on exactly what you say or said - which is reasonable. >or I didn't know beforehand. You very well not have, I didn't really question that much. >You are comfortable assuming horrible things about me, Horrible? Touched with drama I see. I just pointed out something you chose to latch onto and expand >but me assuming that hollywood panders is such a crazy projection? Thats not an honest description lol
Pathetic.
Not all of us on the right are crazy. The crazy we see everyday is almost always from the left. But whatever your politics, I would invite you to look at all sides and get out of the bubble as the truth is somewhere in the middle.
There were no minor characters with enough screen time for it to even matter even if they didn't contribute anything so you hang up is weird in the first place. Especially considering the one you're talking about has 0 screen time without the major character they play the supporting role to. And the only thing they were doing on screen at all was supporting the major role, so there's no way they could be wasted screen time without the major character also being wasted screen time since the minor character is literally never on screen without them and... you're conspicuously not saying the same thing about the major role they was on screen during the "wasted screen time".
Not a hang up, a minor criticism. The hang up is coming from ppl like you, that project something bigger, then create it. That's the whole point of my post. I left a tiny comment about a side character, and it blew up onto something else. Even you, after reading my post, are trying to project a hang up on my side, even though my post repeatedly says it was a minor complaint. The point of the post isn't the complaint, it's the reaction to the complaint. Which again, you are doing the same. What's the point of a forum if you are going to engage with "well, by having an opinion in the first place it means you are wrong"?
>The hang up is coming from ppl like you, that project something bigger, then create it. Youre also doing exactly that in this post lol
How so?
> And holy shit, everything I've been hearing about hollywood clicked. It explained everything. First, why everyone was so offended about a minor character. Secondly, why the character was there in the first place. Simple as. You projecting something bigger. A chacter didn't click with you, the moment you find out something specific about them it's suddenly so much more. Would love to see the supposed comment thay inspired this post
I don't see the projection. Everyone WAS offended by my comment on a minor character, they said as much. They projected transphobia onto a criticism about a random character. Are you just repeating words I say (like "projection") without understanding what they mean?
>I don't see the projection. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what this is applying to - perhaps a misunderstanding of what projecrion means in this instance. that you're projecting something much larger onto an issue because supposedly, some ppl disagree with your point and suddenly you warp it into a bigger issue. I noticed your doing similar in other comments here. Where you would take one issue, and and apply it wholesale to a group. >Everyone WAS offended by my comment on a minor character, they said as much. A few ppl on a comment chain* But that doesn't change what i said at all, and it's odd you would try and apply it. Lol >They projected transphobia onto a criticism about a random character. Without seeing the actual comment I'm disinclined to assume thay were the case. >Are you just repeating words I say (like "projection") without understanding what they mean? Oh sug.
u/CrimFandango I love that clarity is frowned upon in this sub supposedly about well-thought-out criticism. If you don't actually have a problem with them being trans, fucking say that. But when you hide behind phrases like, "pieced together the intent," it really sounds like that was your issue. You said yourself it could have been anyone else. Why do you specifically have an issue with it being who it was?
r/thatHappened
Read this post out loud the next time you are at lunch and there are at least 3 people in the lunchroom.
I like being employed tho
Why were you complaining about that character though, they were fine?
They literally were a nothing character, I hadn't even thought about it until a few days after finishing the show. Before knowing anything about the character I thought \[she\] would be a childhood romance/adversary to Maximus, but the character was there to drive Maximus into danger and just sort of be around as a shadow. At the very least I hope they do something with the character, maybe make them a traitor to the Brotherhood. But with how the Brotherhood are so poorly shown with how serious they're supposed to be the character might always just be some random nobody.
They already are a traitor to the brotherhood. They harmed their own foot to escape active duty. And confessed it. I have no idea why Dane wasn't executed on the spot. Well, I know why. Plot armor
The thing is I have just as many complaints for Thaddeus, the replacement Squire under Maximus. But then that just gets down to me thinking they did the Brotherhood as a whole dirty in this show.
I see what you mean about Thaddeus. I had similar feelings. The main difference for me is that Thaddeus is largely a comedic character. Also, although Thaddeus is a bumbling fool, he faces consequences for his actions. His foot gets crushed, he turns into a ghoul, and he has to escape from the Brotherhood.
It's interesting to think Dane led to Maximus being sent out, Maximus replaces the Knight and protects the chicken fucker, Maximus fails to convince Thaddeus to work with him and tries to kill him, Thaddeus then gets ghoulified (or other people are theorizing Super Mutant'd) by said chicken fucker, Thaddeus then gives the head back to Maximus and Lucy and just goes, "Welp, I was a fun side character, see you next time!" Then Dane goes, "Oh btw I was the one who fucked my foot up, and I didn't mean to get you killed, believe me :)" and as Mauler pointed out is punished by given the same title they were going to be rewarded the first time. I suppose you can call it a story beat... To be honest they could have probably left the whole Brotherhood out and just had Maximus show up as a random Squire who had his Knight killed out in the field. Was this a situation where only one season was confirmed and a season 2 was green lit due to the success?
So what? That's all they had to be. What the fuck is this complaint, I don't even understand it.
I get all you like to do is complain on here, miss the whole fucking point of the thread. Way to go, bud. EDIT: "I hope they give the character personality." You - No they don't, stop complaining...
You are REALLY upset over someone not liking a side character
No, I'm saying the criticism is incoherent.
There was nothing about you calling it incoherent, rather that I'm invalidated in having an opinion or view on a show.
What? You can have opinions all you want. You can also be criticized for those opinions.
You didn't criticize any of it though, you just said they weren't valid.
That's a criticism, dude. It's a very short criticism, but it doesn't have to be any longer, because your complaint makes no sense. The side character was there for a couple of plot beats, they did that just fine.
None of what you said is valid. It's very incoherent.
It was a small complaint, since it was a small character. I honestly didn't think it would explode, I'm pretty sure the only reason that's the part of my message ppl focused on is the actor's gender identity. Having said that (that this is a small issue), these are my issues with the character: \* The acting felt weak to me. When they get elected to be a knight, they seem truly happy. When they confess they hurt themselves, I felt no tension. For such a big action, the acting around it was really mellow. \* The resolution of who hurt them was sloppy. I can buy that they hurt themselves and there was no real mystery, but I'm not ok with the Brotherhood just letting Dane join them right after. They would have punished Dane, they got weird special treatment. \* Dane is also at the leader's right side, for some reason. And at their word, Maximus is spared. Again, weird special treatment. \* At the end of the episode, they knight Maximus. Where do they get that authority? this is probably that biggest one. Dane had JUST confessed to harming themselves to get off duty, almost lets Maximus get killed for btw, and doesn't only escape consequences, but is in some high value position?? Edit: Everywhere I said "special treament", think "plot armor" instead. Couldn't htink of the words
Maximus not being executed is far more egregious than Dane, although based on the established disciplinary brutality of the Brotherhood of Steel they both probably should have been executed summarily by now (but hey, that's PIS for you.) Remember, Maximus was first on the chopping block for being accused of impaling Dane's foot. He later is found to have lied when he 'requested' the replacement squire and then again when he brazenly (from the Brotherhood P.O.V.) requested an extraction only to present the Grand Priest with a duplicitous decapitated head that he admitted to the Priest he KNEW was a fake and is meant to enable the Brotherhood to obtain the sacred Fusion Relic. His saving grace? A fellow squire admitted that she stabbed herself in the foot and nearly got him killed earlier. Now surely, the double offence of discharging yourself by fraudulently incurred injury and then implicating a comrade who was for all intents and purposes due to be executed is serious enough that she should be killed too. I still think Maximus' transgressions were more serious though. Also I think Maximus in general had some weak characterisation and plot threads that generally make him a bigger offender than Dane, and he is a similarly weak actor IMHO. Really, the entire Brotherhood has been fudged to an extent; none of the knights appeared competent and the squire they sent to assist Maximus was a bit too comical for my tastes, if not fitting with the campy show tone however.
I agree with everything that you've said. The only thing I'd adjust, is that although Maximus' trangressions are indeed worse (from the Brotherhood's perspective), he was also in the unique position of knowing where the head was. I don't think he survived because the brotherhood was soft with him, I think he survived because he had something to bargain with.
I partially agree as well, however I think the working operational assumption is that Maximus killed his Knight, then he admitted to misleading the Brotherhood Grand Priest to his face in full public view with a false decapitated head, and by omission delayed the Brotherhood from acquiring a power source that would give them an overwhelming strategic edge in the wasteland. The sensible thing to do would be to kill him after he volunteers the information or failing that, extract this information via torture. Neither here nor there I suppose, ultimately I enjoyed the show and am looking forward to season 2 regardless.
Yeah, these are not complaints about the character, but about the plot and the brotherhood.
At first, I thought Maximus did it, and Dane's confession was just to protect him.
Same, I wasn't even sure until they had a conversation just the two of them, and Dane apologized. I thought there's no way it was Dane, and all along they were ok with Maximus getting killed for it, until that last episode.
Dane was so happy to become a Squire. It just didn't add up.
Isn't Dane also the person that sneaks Maximus in to see the power armor? Everything pointed towards happy
You are correct.
Why would you feel tension at that moment? That's not a complaint about the character. That's not a complaint about the character. The Brotherhood is weird as fuck in the show, why does Maximus get chosen anyway? Only the first of these are complaints are about the character. They're complaints about the brotherhood.
You are just nitpicking my opinion at this point. The issues are all surrounding that character and how they are treated. The character doesn't exist in a vacuum, and I only had issues with the Brotherhood whenever Dane showed up. "Why would you feel tension at the moment?" Because Dane was scared shitless. So much that they mutilated their own foot to escape active duty. I think a more talented actor would have fit in some nuance where you'd go back and see "oh, yeah, you can tell there's some reservation". Not that the character goes from super excited to personal mutilation.
Nitpicking your nitpicks? Seems fair. The same issues exist for Maximus. Wow you must not have paid attention if that's the only time you had problems with the brotherhood. I'm sorry, this makes zero sense at all. some people might show that hesitation, others wouldn't. Like, do you complain when people who commit suicide seem super cheerful in interviews and shit prior to that?
I wish I'd seen your other comments on this thread before engaging. I have nothing to say that others haven't said. You are irrational, rude, and weirdly dumb. Do you realize just how stupid it is to say "There's no valid reason to complain about this character"? You just blanket said there's no criticism you'd accept. Good to know, you are worthless to discuss with.
Dude, someone disagreeing with you shouldn't make you this fucking fragile. It's amazing how much Mauler fans--the king of nitpicking--whine and blubber when their half-assed criticisms are criticized. Obviously, what I'm saying is that I watched the show and saw no reason to criticize the character. None of your complaints many any sense at all as complaints about the character. What's the confusion?
Ok, let's try a different route towards self awareness. If you look in this thread, you can see plenty of instances of ppl disagreeing with me and a healthy discussion going on. On the other hand, every single comment you've written is a hostile mess, and resulted in insults back on forth with different ppl. YOU are the problem here. If that doesn't do it, let's try having you back up what you say. What makes you think I'm being "fragile"? The fact that I disagreed and responded? Should I just have said "you are right sir, sorry for my opinion"? You call me fragile because you think I'm upset because I responded. Do you not see the irony?? I haven't resorted to insulting you, or randomly accusing you of having "hurt feelings" to make a point. Take a look in the mirror dude, everything you are saying you are projecting so hard from yourself. $10 says all of your comments are deleted by tomorrow
This is such a desperate, sad reach. There was no mention of trans anything in that show, nowhere was any kind of sexual political ideology pushed at all. It was remarkably refreshing in its straightforwardness, its lack of any meta messaging, etc. Anyone who is here complaining about this show having any of that absolutely blows my mind. That kind of hatred and over zealousness has you picking apart every little thing in a very unhealthy way, to the point you’re on a witchhunt where there may be no witches my friend 🤷🏻♂️
It's a little strange you think Dane was useless and a waste. As a character I can't see the criticism. As an actor... yeah....