The great thing about DIS coming up is it flags to me who else I need to block because of their unrelenting griping. So long chaps, enjoy your endless reruns.
Although I am a fan of DIS and IDIC, I have to say "enjoy your echo chamber". Blocking people who have differing opinions and being closed to their views leads to Brexit and Trump.
The causal chain of events from me blocking idiots on here to a vote for populism is...tenuous
I have a real problem with the term "Mary Sue." It reeks of sexism.
At least from my side zero. It is a commonly used term for characters like Burnham and Rey as you said yourself. Also in serious zero sexistic magazines or used by women to describe other women. The term was even created by a woman btw. Also that word dismissed you use doesn´t quite fit. How could you dismiss someone who is near perfect Seems you have sensible sunday today...
The main point was that while you love Discovery I don´t see the depth of characters you spoke of. And that the show while enjoyable had quite a few problems. You didn´t touch on any of that, but only exploded about a term you didn´t like so no need to say more. When others like me respect your love of that show, you should also respect the opinion of others who find it ok, but not as brill as you do.
Yea, no, it's definitely sexist. Even if you're right and it wasn't originally meant that way, it's definitely become a term favored by incels and the anti-feminist alt-right. It's not the term itself, it's the intent. And that intent is clearly to minimize the achievements of women. You know how I know that? Because there's no derogatory term for a man that's good at multiple things. It's sure as shootin' not used by anyone trying to applaud and glorify the women.
Nothing like a post complaining a made up term, that uses another made up word.......
"The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself."
No, Russian propaganda, xenophobia, and fear mongering brought Brexit and Trump.
Ok, hopefully this is going to be my only political post in a forum I very occasionally visit to get away from such things.
Firstly, regarding Brexit, you're parroting a facile and incorrect narrative that the media enjoys using, mainly as anything nuanced rarely gets covered correctly regardless of where on the political spectrum it sits. Left or right concepts are shoehorned into binary and false dichotomies into McNews. In an era of 24 hour rolling news, it is something of a bitter irony that the quality of debate on those programs seems to have reduced.
It was also why, the day after the referendum result, a minority of racist slime temporarily felt they were in the majority. Broad brushing comes with consequences, and not ones a broadly white UK middle class will ever suffer, otherwise they may pick their words with more care.
There are a raft of reasons why Brexit happened, including some of which you describe, but also environmental concerns (the nett rate of economic inwards migration is a massive driver of greenhouse gases, via increased housing and infrastructure requirements, and cross-border trade comes with a larger carbon footprint than local markets), economic (cheap labour has reduced productivity - cf. the number of automated car washes has decreased as they are more expensive than trafficked labour, and wages trend towards the natural floor of the minimum wage and sometimes below*), social (Western Europe in general is terrible at integration, from the Turkish migrants I met in West Germany during the 80's, to the abused African migrants in French Banlieues today) and representative (a UK Green MEP got to discover that the UK traditionally sends more diverse members, and that the EU still expects white men rather than anyone from a BAME background.)
And I state those as a socially liberal, economically centre-right person who generally approves of economic migration and globalisation - a quick look at the trend of the whole world Gini coefficient should tell you why. It should also help explain Trump and Brexit a little by the fact many Western nations have imported global inequality, with the corresponding effect on national Gini coefficients.
People forget that in the 70's the EU was regarded as a right-wing plot to undermine workers rights, which is why Corbyn has been such a Eurosceptic most of his life, and has had to be virtually forced off the fence towards a lukewarm Remain position.
So, not speaking for the forces that brought Trump, but Brexit has a lot of geneses.
*Correlation may not be causation, but the first major drop in nett inward migration for some time was met with the first major jump in wages for some time as a reduced supply of labour has forced employers to improve wages to get the best remaining talent.
In fairness, we have only ourselves (Trek fans) to blame for the term Mary Sue; it comes from a 70s Star Trek fanfic story.
But I think the idea of Kirk or Picard being male-Mary Sues are unfair. Kirk and Picard made the right decisions (that's what a leader is supposed to do), but didn't come up with all the ideas; the other officers usually suggested them. [the one exemption to that statement which I'll forgive would be Kirk vs. Gorn].
I haven't seen enough of DIS to have an informed opinion of whether the term applies better to Burnham.
I agree that it is a lame way to explain it, by saying r ethane is sworn to secrecy. That doesn’t fly. There would be records of it, and hundreds of years later it is still totally unknown? And count me in the camp of let’s now follow Pike, Number One, and Spock, i liked the Discovery crew but they are played out, especially if we are just going to be treated to more Burnham crying and all the sentiment
You mean like the Klingon/Augment arc?
In TOS, Klingons have smooth foreheads.
In TMP, they're ridged, and no one is going "woah! WTF?!"
When they go back in DS9, O'Brien looks at the smooth foreheaded variety and goes "woah, *those* are Klingons? What happened" with Worf saying they don't mention it.
Now, it was originally a bit of a fourth-wall breaker, but ENT decided to make a story about it.
I find the likelihood that one ship in the fleet being forgotten much easier to accept than an entire species' appearance changing.
Did the Klingons send in their version of MiB to memory wipe smooth foreheaded Klingons? Was there a pact where the Federation would forget all about them in exchange for the Klingons not mentioning Admiral McAnally's unfortunate incident with the Targ, where he insisted it wasn't what it looked like, and his belt just fell off, and the tree stump was there, and please don't let his wife find out?
I’ll admit that I kinda wanted to jump in but know that Shan is going to warn people to stop filling the event topic with non-event political discussions...it’s just not worth it to get this topic closed before the event even happens.
I’ll admit that I kinda wanted to jump in but know that Shan is going to warn people to stop filling the event topic with non-event political discussions...it’s just not worth it to get this topic closed before the event even happens.
Well, I think that’d be a first. We’d get the event thread shut down days before the event even starts.
Regarding the OP, I am looking forward to adding another TAS character to my crew, as well as finishing & freezing my 3/4* Commander Uhura. 🖖🏻
There are 43 existing cards with the Innovator trait:
5 Assimilated La Forge
5 Augment Commander O'Brien
5 Captain La Forge
5 Dr. Richard Daystrom
5 Dr. Soong
5 Duelist Torres
5 Fennim
5 Interfaced Barclay
5 Interfaced La Forge
5 Leonardo da Vinci
5 Lt Commander La Forge
5 Mirror Zefram Cochrane
5 Phoenix Cochrane
5 Protomorphosis Barclay
5 Scientist Degra
5 Sphere-Builder Presage
4 Age of Sail La Forge
4 Alan-A-Dale
4 Commander Barclay 4 Dr. Carol Marcus
4 Dr. David Marcus
4 Dr. Tolian Soran
4 Gralik Durr
4 Herbert Rossoff
4 Hologram Barclay
4 Icheb
4 Kurak
4 Kurros
4 Lewis Zimmerman
4 Mirror Geordi La Forge
4 Rogue Harry Kim
4 Tactical Michael Burnham
4 Tash
3 Chief Engineer La Forge
3 Chief Engineer Torres
3 Commander Scott
3 Donik
3 Dr. Reyga
3 Duelist Barclay
3 Ensign Robin Lefler
3 Gilora Rejal
2 Geordi La Forge
2 Injured Torres
Dr. Carol Marcus is a 3*. Thanks for the list. It looks like I have a few frozen that I might need to thaw.
Don't be too quick to thaw. It's a Galaxy event, so bonus crew seldom tops event crew. I'd wait until we see the missions on Thursday.
Sure the political discussion is OT and no, I don’t like seeing it on anything other than an occasional basis, but it can be useful sometimes. Case in point was one or two people in this topic telling us who they really are. Don’t need to guess anymore when they just come out and admit it.
Back on topic, really excited for the addition of another TAS card, and one that can be obtained with relative ease.
First Officer - Task Force April
Squadron Leader - [TFA] Bateson’s Bulldogs
The great thing about DIS coming up is it flags to me who else I need to block because of their unrelenting griping. So long chaps, enjoy your endless reruns.
Although I am a fan of DIS and IDIC, I have to say "enjoy your echo chamber". Blocking people who have differing opinions and being closed to their views leads to Brexit and Trump.
No, Russian propaganda, xenophobia, and fear mongering brought Brexit and Trump.
Keep your politics out of this forum. It's inappropriate.
The great thing about DIS coming up is it flags to me who else I need to block because of their unrelenting griping. So long chaps, enjoy your endless reruns.
Although I am a fan of DIS and IDIC, I have to say "enjoy your echo chamber". Blocking people who have differing opinions and being closed to their views leads to Brexit and Trump.
No, Russian propaganda, xenophobia, and fear mongering brought Brexit and Trump.
Keep your politics out of this forum. It's inappropriate.
To be fair he's not the one who began the political discussion. You can probably take your sanctimonious posts elsewhere.
But I am hoping in time that they will try watching it or rewatching it and see some of what we Discovery lovers love about it. I love the depth of the characters. Burnham is an interesting character that I enjoy now though she bugged me to no end in the first two episodes. Sarek, Pike, Spock, and Number One were great additions and tied the series more to TOS and TNG.
I know you love Discovery much and I respect that. We all have different tastes after all. But when there is one thing I don´t see it is depth of the characters. Most of the bridge crew are zero flashed out so far. Everything centers around Burnham. The ultimate Mary Sue of everything who always has the right idea at the right time.
Anson Mount on the other hand was perfectly cast and well written. And as you said: It tied in nicely to the past, but so also took away much shine from the Discovery cast. Also and especially through the final moments of the last episode. Which somehow reminded me of "These are the Voyages" (aka a focus on the "wrong" crew). Many people are very hot for new adventures of Pike, not so much for more of Discovery.
And this "no one is allowed to mention the Discovery and her crew etc." to explain away canon contradicting stuff is simply bad writing. Let´s assume even if everyone in Starfleet would stick to it, what about the other species they met so far? Especially the Klingons. They wrote themselves into a corner with some decisions and opted for a lame way out of it.
Also as I said earlier in this thread in a way the show didn´t know clearly which kind of stories they wanted to tell exactly. Hence it started as a prequel and is now a sequel. I enjoyed some episodes and had fun watching Discovery. But there is much room for improvement yet. The coming season will decide the path for it imho.
I have a real problem with the term "Mary Sue." It reeks of sexism. When do you ever hear a male character dismissed and called "Mary Sue" or the male equivalent "Marty Stu?" Have you ever heard of any male character being called it ever? The male version is used so infrequently, if at all, that I had to google "male equivalent of Mary Sue" to even know what it was. Yet both Discovery's Burnham and Star Wars' Rey are both dismissed as Mary Sues. By dictionary.com "a Mary Sue is a term used to describe a fictional character, usually female, who is seen as too perfect and almost boring for lack of flaws." Almost every main character in every story, male and female, is someone who suceeds more often than they fail. The protagonist faces crisis after crisis and must overcome them. Nobody called Kirk a Marty Stu even though he did everything, was almost always right and often single-handedly beat the enemy computers with his "logic." Nobody called Picard a Marty Stu even though he was perfect in almost every regard and was almost always right. He would routinely go against his superior admirals and he would be proved right and the admiral's career would be over. Everyone on the Enterprise also idolized him and extolled his virtues numerous times to anyone that would listen. In DS9 Sisko was half god, literally a demigod. A commander that was put in charge of the most important station in the galaxy, made a religious figure to the local planet, led the fighting force against the Dominion, won, and single handedly beat the pah-wraiths. The Prophets even destroyed 1,000 Dominion ships thereby saving the Alpha Quadrant simply because Sisko asked them to. Nobody called him a Marty Stu. And Archer stopped the Suliban, stopped the Xindi threat, was given the katra of the most revered Vulcan philosopher and with it altered the whole vulcan society and single-handedly created the Federation and yet I have never heard him called Marty Stu either.
There are no Marty Stus. Because all male characters are written with strengths AND flaws. Thus are not "practically perfect in every way". That is what makes you a Mary Sue. If a character isn't the best at EVERYTHING and always perfect then they aren't a true Mary Sue.
But I am hoping in time that they will try watching it or rewatching it and see some of what we Discovery lovers love about it. I love the depth of the characters. Burnham is an interesting character that I enjoy now though she bugged me to no end in the first two episodes. Sarek, Pike, Spock, and Number One were great additions and tied the series more to TOS and TNG.
I know you love Discovery much and I respect that. We all have different tastes after all. But when there is one thing I don´t see it is depth of the characters. Most of the bridge crew are zero flashed out so far. Everything centers around Burnham. The ultimate Mary Sue of everything who always has the right idea at the right time.
Anson Mount on the other hand was perfectly cast and well written. And as you said: It tied in nicely to the past, but so also took away much shine from the Discovery cast. Also and especially through the final moments of the last episode. Which somehow reminded me of "These are the Voyages" (aka a focus on the "wrong" crew). Many people are very hot for new adventures of Pike, not so much for more of Discovery.
And this "no one is allowed to mention the Discovery and her crew etc." to explain away canon contradicting stuff is simply bad writing. Let´s assume even if everyone in Starfleet would stick to it, what about the other species they met so far? Especially the Klingons. They wrote themselves into a corner with some decisions and opted for a lame way out of it.
Also as I said earlier in this thread in a way the show didn´t know clearly which kind of stories they wanted to tell exactly. Hence it started as a prequel and is now a sequel. I enjoyed some episodes and had fun watching Discovery. But there is much room for improvement yet. The coming season will decide the path for it imho.
I have a real problem with the term "Mary Sue." It reeks of sexism. When do you ever hear a male character dismissed and called "Mary Sue" or the male equivalent "Marty Stu?" Have you ever heard of any male character being called it ever? The male version is used so infrequently, if at all, that I had to google "male equivalent of Mary Sue" to even know what it was. Yet both Discovery's Burnham and Star Wars' Rey are both dismissed as Mary Sues. By dictionary.com "a Mary Sue is a term used to describe a fictional character, usually female, who is seen as too perfect and almost boring for lack of flaws." Almost every main character in every story, male and female, is someone who suceeds more often than they fail. The protagonist faces crisis after crisis and must overcome them. Nobody called Kirk a Marty Stu even though he did everything, was almost always right and often single-handedly beat the enemy computers with his "logic." Nobody called Picard a Marty Stu even though he was perfect in almost every regard and was almost always right. He would routinely go against his superior admirals and he would be proved right and the admiral's career would be over. Everyone on the Enterprise also idolized him and extolled his virtues numerous times to anyone that would listen. In DS9 Sisko was half god, literally a demigod. A commander that was put in charge of the most important station in the galaxy, made a religious figure to the local planet, led the fighting force against the Dominion, won, and single handedly beat the pah-wraiths. The Prophets even destroyed 1,000 Dominion ships thereby saving the Alpha Quadrant simply because Sisko asked them to. Nobody called him a Marty Stu. And Archer stopped the Suliban, stopped the Xindi threat, was given the katra of the most revered Vulcan philosopher and with it altered the whole vulcan society and single-handedly created the Federation and yet I have never heard him called Marty Stu either.
There are no Marty Stus. Because all male characters are written with strengths AND flaws. Thus are not "practically perfect in every way". That is what makes you a Mary Sue. If a character isn't the best at EVERYTHING and always perfect then they aren't a true Mary Sue.
The best way I can illustrate this is star wars. Luke was not a Marty Stu because he had TONS of flaws and shortcomings. He failed repeatedly. He grew and matured and BECAME the hero. Rey started off with ZERO faults, could do everything immediately and was practically perfect in every way. Had they written her to have faults, to not be an instant expert in everything she did, to have her fail repeatedly before becoming great, it would be a different story. This isn't sexist to call this BS out. When did logical, reasonable, and respectful criticism become bigotry?
But I am hoping in time that they will try watching it or rewatching it and see some of what we Discovery lovers love about it. I love the depth of the characters. Burnham is an interesting character that I enjoy now though she bugged me to no end in the first two episodes. Sarek, Pike, Spock, and Number One were great additions and tied the series more to TOS and TNG.
I know you love Discovery much and I respect that. We all have different tastes after all. But when there is one thing I don´t see it is depth of the characters. Most of the bridge crew are zero flashed out so far. Everything centers around Burnham. The ultimate Mary Sue of everything who always has the right idea at the right time.
Anson Mount on the other hand was perfectly cast and well written. And as you said: It tied in nicely to the past, but so also took away much shine from the Discovery cast. Also and especially through the final moments of the last episode. Which somehow reminded me of "These are the Voyages" (aka a focus on the "wrong" crew). Many people are very hot for new adventures of Pike, not so much for more of Discovery.
And this "no one is allowed to mention the Discovery and her crew etc." to explain away canon contradicting stuff is simply bad writing. Let´s assume even if everyone in Starfleet would stick to it, what about the other species they met so far? Especially the Klingons. They wrote themselves into a corner with some decisions and opted for a lame way out of it.
Also as I said earlier in this thread in a way the show didn´t know clearly which kind of stories they wanted to tell exactly. Hence it started as a prequel and is now a sequel. I enjoyed some episodes and had fun watching Discovery. But there is much room for improvement yet. The coming season will decide the path for it imho.
I have a real problem with the term "Mary Sue." It reeks of sexism. When do you ever hear a male character dismissed and called "Mary Sue" or the male equivalent "Marty Stu?" Have you ever heard of any male character being called it ever? The male version is used so infrequently, if at all, that I had to google "male equivalent of Mary Sue" to even know what it was. Yet both Discovery's Burnham and Star Wars' Rey are both dismissed as Mary Sues. By dictionary.com "a Mary Sue is a term used to describe a fictional character, usually female, who is seen as too perfect and almost boring for lack of flaws." Almost every main character in every story, male and female, is someone who suceeds more often than they fail. The protagonist faces crisis after crisis and must overcome them. Nobody called Kirk a Marty Stu even though he did everything, was almost always right and often single-handedly beat the enemy computers with his "logic." Nobody called Picard a Marty Stu even though he was perfect in almost every regard and was almost always right. He would routinely go against his superior admirals and he would be proved right and the admiral's career would be over. Everyone on the Enterprise also idolized him and extolled his virtues numerous times to anyone that would listen. In DS9 Sisko was half god, literally a demigod. A commander that was put in charge of the most important station in the galaxy, made a religious figure to the local planet, led the fighting force against the Dominion, won, and single handedly beat the pah-wraiths. The Prophets even destroyed 1,000 Dominion ships thereby saving the Alpha Quadrant simply because Sisko asked them to. Nobody called him a Marty Stu. And Archer stopped the Suliban, stopped the Xindi threat, was given the katra of the most revered Vulcan philosopher and with it altered the whole vulcan society and single-handedly created the Federation and yet I have never heard him called Marty Stu either.
There are no Marty Stus. Because all male characters are written with strengths AND flaws. Thus are not "practically perfect in every way". That is what makes you a Mary Sue. If a character isn't the best at EVERYTHING and always perfect then they aren't a true Mary Sue.
But I am hoping in time that they will try watching it or rewatching it and see some of what we Discovery lovers love about it. I love the depth of the characters. Burnham is an interesting character that I enjoy now though she bugged me to no end in the first two episodes. Sarek, Pike, Spock, and Number One were great additions and tied the series more to TOS and TNG.
I know you love Discovery much and I respect that. We all have different tastes after all. But when there is one thing I don´t see it is depth of the characters. Most of the bridge crew are zero flashed out so far. Everything centers around Burnham. The ultimate Mary Sue of everything who always has the right idea at the right time.
Anson Mount on the other hand was perfectly cast and well written. And as you said: It tied in nicely to the past, but so also took away much shine from the Discovery cast. Also and especially through the final moments of the last episode. Which somehow reminded me of "These are the Voyages" (aka a focus on the "wrong" crew). Many people are very hot for new adventures of Pike, not so much for more of Discovery.
And this "no one is allowed to mention the Discovery and her crew etc." to explain away canon contradicting stuff is simply bad writing. Let´s assume even if everyone in Starfleet would stick to it, what about the other species they met so far? Especially the Klingons. They wrote themselves into a corner with some decisions and opted for a lame way out of it.
Also as I said earlier in this thread in a way the show didn´t know clearly which kind of stories they wanted to tell exactly. Hence it started as a prequel and is now a sequel. I enjoyed some episodes and had fun watching Discovery. But there is much room for improvement yet. The coming season will decide the path for it imho.
I have a real problem with the term "Mary Sue." It reeks of sexism. When do you ever hear a male character dismissed and called "Mary Sue" or the male equivalent "Marty Stu?" Have you ever heard of any male character being called it ever? The male version is used so infrequently, if at all, that I had to google "male equivalent of Mary Sue" to even know what it was. Yet both Discovery's Burnham and Star Wars' Rey are both dismissed as Mary Sues. By dictionary.com "a Mary Sue is a term used to describe a fictional character, usually female, who is seen as too perfect and almost boring for lack of flaws." Almost every main character in every story, male and female, is someone who suceeds more often than they fail. The protagonist faces crisis after crisis and must overcome them. Nobody called Kirk a Marty Stu even though he did everything, was almost always right and often single-handedly beat the enemy computers with his "logic." Nobody called Picard a Marty Stu even though he was perfect in almost every regard and was almost always right. He would routinely go against his superior admirals and he would be proved right and the admiral's career would be over. Everyone on the Enterprise also idolized him and extolled his virtues numerous times to anyone that would listen. In DS9 Sisko was half god, literally a demigod. A commander that was put in charge of the most important station in the galaxy, made a religious figure to the local planet, led the fighting force against the Dominion, won, and single handedly beat the pah-wraiths. The Prophets even destroyed 1,000 Dominion ships thereby saving the Alpha Quadrant simply because Sisko asked them to. Nobody called him a Marty Stu. And Archer stopped the Suliban, stopped the Xindi threat, was given the katra of the most revered Vulcan philosopher and with it altered the whole vulcan society and single-handedly created the Federation and yet I have never heard him called Marty Stu either.
There are no Marty Stus. Because all male characters are written with strengths AND flaws. Thus are not "practically perfect in every way". That is what makes you a Mary Sue. If a character isn't the best at EVERYTHING and always perfect then they aren't a true Mary Sue.
But I am hoping in time that they will try watching it or rewatching it and see some of what we Discovery lovers love about it. I love the depth of the characters. Burnham is an interesting character that I enjoy now though she bugged me to no end in the first two episodes. Sarek, Pike, Spock, and Number One were great additions and tied the series more to TOS and TNG.
I know you love Discovery much and I respect that. We all have different tastes after all. But when there is one thing I don´t see it is depth of the characters. Most of the bridge crew are zero flashed out so far. Everything centers around Burnham. The ultimate Mary Sue of everything who always has the right idea at the right time.
Anson Mount on the other hand was perfectly cast and well written. And as you said: It tied in nicely to the past, but so also took away much shine from the Discovery cast. Also and especially through the final moments of the last episode. Which somehow reminded me of "These are the Voyages" (aka a focus on the "wrong" crew). Many people are very hot for new adventures of Pike, not so much for more of Discovery.
And this "no one is allowed to mention the Discovery and her crew etc." to explain away canon contradicting stuff is simply bad writing. Let´s assume even if everyone in Starfleet would stick to it, what about the other species they met so far? Especially the Klingons. They wrote themselves into a corner with some decisions and opted for a lame way out of it.
Also as I said earlier in this thread in a way the show didn´t know clearly which kind of stories they wanted to tell exactly. Hence it started as a prequel and is now a sequel. I enjoyed some episodes and had fun watching Discovery. But there is much room for improvement yet. The coming season will decide the path for it imho.
I have a real problem with the term "Mary Sue." It reeks of sexism. When do you ever hear a male character dismissed and called "Mary Sue" or the male equivalent "Marty Stu?" Have you ever heard of any male character being called it ever? The male version is used so infrequently, if at all, that I had to google "male equivalent of Mary Sue" to even know what it was. Yet both Discovery's Burnham and Star Wars' Rey are both dismissed as Mary Sues. By dictionary.com "a Mary Sue is a term used to describe a fictional character, usually female, who is seen as too perfect and almost boring for lack of flaws." Almost every main character in every story, male and female, is someone who suceeds more often than they fail. The protagonist faces crisis after crisis and must overcome them. Nobody called Kirk a Marty Stu even though he did everything, was almost always right and often single-handedly beat the enemy computers with his "logic." Nobody called Picard a Marty Stu even though he was perfect in almost every regard and was almost always right. He would routinely go against his superior admirals and he would be proved right and the admiral's career would be over. Everyone on the Enterprise also idolized him and extolled his virtues numerous times to anyone that would listen. In DS9 Sisko was half god, literally a demigod. A commander that was put in charge of the most important station in the galaxy, made a religious figure to the local planet, led the fighting force against the Dominion, won, and single handedly beat the pah-wraiths. The Prophets even destroyed 1,000 Dominion ships thereby saving the Alpha Quadrant simply because Sisko asked them to. Nobody called him a Marty Stu. And Archer stopped the Suliban, stopped the Xindi threat, was given the katra of the most revered Vulcan philosopher and with it altered the whole vulcan society and single-handedly created the Federation and yet I have never heard him called Marty Stu either.
There are no Marty Stus. Because all male characters are written with strengths AND flaws. Thus are not "practically perfect in every way". That is what makes you a Mary Sue. If a character isn't the best at EVERYTHING and always perfect then they aren't a true Mary Sue.
Comments
The causal chain of events from me blocking idiots on here to a vote for populism is...tenuous
Nothing like a post complaining a made up term, that uses another made up word.......
Ok, hopefully this is going to be my only political post in a forum I very occasionally visit to get away from such things.
Firstly, regarding Brexit, you're parroting a facile and incorrect narrative that the media enjoys using, mainly as anything nuanced rarely gets covered correctly regardless of where on the political spectrum it sits. Left or right concepts are shoehorned into binary and false dichotomies into McNews. In an era of 24 hour rolling news, it is something of a bitter irony that the quality of debate on those programs seems to have reduced.
It was also why, the day after the referendum result, a minority of racist slime temporarily felt they were in the majority. Broad brushing comes with consequences, and not ones a broadly white UK middle class will ever suffer, otherwise they may pick their words with more care.
There are a raft of reasons why Brexit happened, including some of which you describe, but also environmental concerns (the nett rate of economic inwards migration is a massive driver of greenhouse gases, via increased housing and infrastructure requirements, and cross-border trade comes with a larger carbon footprint than local markets), economic (cheap labour has reduced productivity - cf. the number of automated car washes has decreased as they are more expensive than trafficked labour, and wages trend towards the natural floor of the minimum wage and sometimes below*), social (Western Europe in general is terrible at integration, from the Turkish migrants I met in West Germany during the 80's, to the abused African migrants in French Banlieues today) and representative (a UK Green MEP got to discover that the UK traditionally sends more diverse members, and that the EU still expects white men rather than anyone from a BAME background.)
And I state those as a socially liberal, economically centre-right person who generally approves of economic migration and globalisation - a quick look at the trend of the whole world Gini coefficient should tell you why. It should also help explain Trump and Brexit a little by the fact many Western nations have imported global inequality, with the corresponding effect on national Gini coefficients.
People forget that in the 70's the EU was regarded as a right-wing plot to undermine workers rights, which is why Corbyn has been such a Eurosceptic most of his life, and has had to be virtually forced off the fence towards a lukewarm Remain position.
So, not speaking for the forces that brought Trump, but Brexit has a lot of geneses.
*Correlation may not be causation, but the first major drop in nett inward migration for some time was met with the first major jump in wages for some time as a reduced supply of labour has forced employers to improve wages to get the best remaining talent.
But I think the idea of Kirk or Picard being male-Mary Sues are unfair. Kirk and Picard made the right decisions (that's what a leader is supposed to do), but didn't come up with all the ideas; the other officers usually suggested them. [the one exemption to that statement which I'll forgive would be Kirk vs. Gorn].
I haven't seen enough of DIS to have an informed opinion of whether the term applies better to Burnham.
You mean like the Klingon/Augment arc?
In TOS, Klingons have smooth foreheads.
In TMP, they're ridged, and no one is going "woah! WTF?!"
When they go back in DS9, O'Brien looks at the smooth foreheaded variety and goes "woah, *those* are Klingons? What happened" with Worf saying they don't mention it.
Now, it was originally a bit of a fourth-wall breaker, but ENT decided to make a story about it.
I find the likelihood that one ship in the fleet being forgotten much easier to accept than an entire species' appearance changing.
Did the Klingons send in their version of MiB to memory wipe smooth foreheaded Klingons? Was there a pact where the Federation would forget all about them in exchange for the Klingons not mentioning Admiral McAnally's unfortunate incident with the Targ, where he insisted it wasn't what it looked like, and his belt just fell off, and the tree stump was there, and please don't let his wife find out?
Yes. You don’t remember that part on Discovery before they went through the time thingy?
I’ll admit that I kinda wanted to jump in but know that Shan is going to warn people to stop filling the event topic with non-event political discussions...it’s just not worth it to get this topic closed before the event even happens.
Carry on .. discussing the event.
Shan, people keep making game comments in this political thread!!!!!!
Three Bonus cards have MED, and none of them are in the top 25 Base MED, even with the Bonus.
SEC is also rather sparse. But most everyone now has Gunslinger Uhura after the first campaign.
Wrong gunslinger - it was Troi, not Uhura.
Well, I think that’d be a first. We’d get the event thread shut down days before the event even starts.
Bad Me. Then SEC might also be tight.
Don't be too quick to thaw. It's a Galaxy event, so bonus crew seldom tops event crew. I'd wait until we see the missions on Thursday.
I am digging this artwork; thanks for posting it, @Haere Lintesereg !🖖🏻
Back on topic, really excited for the addition of another TAS card, and one that can be obtained with relative ease.
Squadron Leader - [TFA] Bateson’s Bulldogs
Starport
Keep your politics out of this forum. It's inappropriate.
To be fair he's not the one who began the political discussion. You can probably take your sanctimonious posts elsewhere.
There are no Marty Stus. Because all male characters are written with strengths AND flaws. Thus are not "practically perfect in every way". That is what makes you a Mary Sue. If a character isn't the best at EVERYTHING and always perfect then they aren't a true Mary Sue.
The best way I can illustrate this is star wars. Luke was not a Marty Stu because he had TONS of flaws and shortcomings. He failed repeatedly. He grew and matured and BECAME the hero. Rey started off with ZERO faults, could do everything immediately and was practically perfect in every way. Had they written her to have faults, to not be an instant expert in everything she did, to have her fail repeatedly before becoming great, it would be a different story. This isn't sexist to call this BS out. When did logical, reasonable, and respectful criticism become bigotry?
loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
All you gotta do to disprove me is provide one example. I'm making it easy on people to enter the debate.
We’re trying to have nice things.
Squadron Leader - [TFA] Bateson’s Bulldogs
1) Does not feature the characters you are referring to
2) Features a giant animated bird
You're welcome! I see it by chance in the twitter in that moment, so I posted here.