logo Sign In

Ranking the Star Wars films — Page 113

Author
Time

Oh well fuck me I guess MaximRecoil was right all along.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

You keep going back to wikipedia to say we’re all wrong about how Mary Sue is a derogatory term used towards female characters, yet you seem to have ignored this one paragrpah in that same wiki entry

“Christine Scodari, a researcher in media studies from gender perspective, noticed a tendency within slash fandom to label major female characters (e.g. Nyota Uhura in the Star Trek 2009 film reboot) as “Mary Sues” because the slash fans “begrudged” how the development of the female character takes away screen time from slashable male characters.[16]”

Like i said before, just because a word or term originated with a certain meaning does not mean that , after time, it can’t become something that becomes commonly used as a derogatory term towards a race or sex. It is more widely used as in derogatory form towards female characters that it is used in its original meaning. You only have to go on certain forums and sites to see just how many use it because they hate the “female agenda” in Hollywood as they see it. The comments section on youtube alone since TFA came out was littered with the comments using “Mary Sue” in a derogatory fashion.

ANH:REVISITED
ESB:REVISITED

DONATIONS TOWARDS MATERIALS FOR THE REVISITED SAGA

Author
Time

yhwx said:

Where does that assertion come from? I never said that they controlled those sources; I’m just saying that there’s inherent sexism in our society. Is that that hard to understand? I guess so.

You pointed out that Wikipedia editors are “overwhelmingly male”, in order to suggest bias on their part. I then pointed out that the paragraph I cited is sourced, from a female author, no less. So, unless Kat Feete is under the control of male Wikipedia editors, your point is negated.

This is the “your being offended is your fault” attitude that is extremely toxic to the underprivileged.

When someone is offended as a result of their own misconceptions, it is logically their fault.

We don’t define words by what somebody in a white paper said once, we define them by how they’re used, and now, “Mary Sue” is being used in a sexist fashion.

This is a mere assertion on your part, i.e., you have no reliable source to back it up.

It is 100% reasonable to be offended by the use of the term Mary Sue.

False. It is never reasonable to be offended by a term that doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Try asking a woman about it sometime.

Which woman gets to redefine the English language? To find out the meaning of words, you don’t ask a random person, you look to reliable sources. You haven’t provided any reliable sources which supports your assertions, and that’s because there are none. A Mary Sue is a character type, and the sex of the character is not part of the definition. Again, prior to December 2015, Wesley Crusher was the most famous Mary Sue. Were you trying to play the “misogynistic” card then? Of course not, and you doing it with Rey is a case of special pleading, which is a logical fallacy.

Author
Time

yhwx said:

MaximRecoil said:

TV’s Frink said:

MaximRecoil said:

why do you even reply to me?

Given that you intentionally misquoted my post, your intellectual dishonesty is noted.

It seems like you don’t understand the concept of “joke.”

He wasn’t claiming, either implicitly or explicitly, to be authoritative and truthful in that post. I think that should be obvious. The misquote was used to make a point.

An intentional misquote is intellectually dishonest. There is no valid point to be made which requires you to misquote someone.

Author
Time

MaximRecoil said:

yhwx said:

Where does that assertion come from? I never said that they controlled those sources; I’m just saying that there’s inherent sexism in our society. Is that that hard to understand? I guess so.

You pointed out that Wikipedia editors are “overwhelmingly male”, in order to suggest bias on their part. I then pointed out that the paragraph I cited is sourced, from a female author, no less. So, unless Kat Feete is under the control of male Wikipedia editors, your point is negated.

Holy shit, did you not read the last two sentences of that section that you just quoted. I clarified my intention there!

This is the “your being offended is your fault” attitude that is extremely toxic to the underprivileged.

When someone is offended as a result of their own misconceptions, it is logically their fault.

Logically, I guess, but it is still an extremely toxic attitude to take.

We don’t define words by what somebody in a white paper said once, we define them by how they’re used, and now, “Mary Sue” is being used in a sexist fashion.

This is a mere assertion on your part, i.e., you have no reliable source to back it up.

Okay.

It is 100% reasonable to be offended by the use of the term Mary Sue.

False. It is never reasonable to be offended by a term that doesn’t mean what you think it means.

I’d rather refer this issue to the women rather than you, thank you very much.

Try asking a woman about it sometime.

Which woman gets to redefine the English language? To find out the meaning of words, you don’t ask a random person, you look to reliable sources. You haven’t provided any reliable sources which supports your assertions, and that’s because there are none. A Mary Sue is a character type, and the sex of the character is not part of the definition. Again, prior to December 2015, Wesley Crusher was the most famous Mary Sue. Were you trying to play the “misogynistic” card then? Of course not, and you doing it with Rey is a case of special pleading, which is a logical fallacy.

The reliable sources are based on how people generally use words.

Author
Time

MaximRecoil said:

yhwx said:

MaximRecoil said:

TV’s Frink said:

MaximRecoil said:

why do you even reply to me?

Given that you intentionally misquoted my post, your intellectual dishonesty is noted.

It seems like you don’t understand the concept of “joke.”

He wasn’t claiming, either implicitly or explicitly, to be authoritative and truthful in that post. I think that should be obvious. The misquote was used to make a point.

An intentional misquote is intellectually dishonest. There is no valid point to be made which requires you to misquote someone.

The misquote is so god damn small that you’re doing so much ado about nothing.

Author
Time

adywan said:

You keep going back to wikipedia to say we’re all wrong about how Mary Sue is a derogatory term used towards female characters, yet you seem to have ignored this one paragrpah in that same wiki entry

“Christine Scodari, a researcher in media studies from gender perspective, noticed a tendency within slash fandom to label major female characters (e.g. Nyota Uhura in the Star Trek 2009 film reboot) as “Mary Sues” because the slash fans “begrudged” how the development of the female character takes away screen time from slashable male characters.[16]”

Like i said before, just because a word or term originated with a certain meaning does not mean that , after time, it can’t become something that becomes commonly used as a derogatory term towards a race or sex. It is more widely used as in derogatory form towards female characters that it is used in its original meaning. You only have to go on certain forums and sites to see just how many use it because they hate the “female agenda” in Hollywood as they see it. The comments section on youtube alone since TFA came out was littered with the comments using “Mary Sue” in a derogatory fashion.

This is a good post.

Author
Time

This discussion makes me want to bash my head against a wall until I die.

Author
Time

Jeebus said:

This discussion makes me want to bash my head against a wall until I die.

This is also a good post.

Author
Time

adywan said:

You keep going back to wikipedia to say we’re all wrong about how Mary Sue is a derogatory term used towards female characters, yet you seem to have ignored this one paragrpah in that same wiki entry

Wikipedia isn’t the source. I’ve only posted two excerpts from Wikipedia, both of which are sourced from other places, primarily this site:

http://fmwriters.com/Visionback/Issue30/marysue.htm

“Christine Scodari, a researcher in media studies from gender perspective, noticed a tendency within slash fandom to label major female characters (e.g. Nyota Uhura in the Star Trek 2009 film reboot) as “Mary Sues” because the slash fans “begrudged” how the development of the female character takes away screen time from slashable male characters.[16]”

Only correct application of the term is relevant. Every word/term in the English language has been misapplied by someone, somewhere, countless times.

Like i said before, just because a word or term originated with a certain meaning does not mean that , after time, it can’t become something that becomes commonly used as a derogatory term towards a race or sex. It is more widely used as in derogatory form towards female characters that it is used in its original meaning. You only have to go on certain forums and sites to see just how many use it because they hate the “female agenda” in Hollywood as they see it. The comments section on youtube alone since TFA came out was littered with the comments using “Mary Sue” in a derogatory fashion.

The reasons given for Rey being a Mary Sue have nothing to do with her sex. And whether or not a “female agenda” resulted in the creation of a Mary Sue is a completely different argument. Rey is a Mary Sue regardless of what led to her creation. If your theory were true, people would commonly be calling all female leads in major works of fiction “Mary Sues”, yet that hasn’t happened. Additionally, there wouldn’t be any male Mary Sues, but in reality, the most famous one until Rey came along was Wesley Crusher.

Author
Time

My main problem is that I don’t buy that Rey is a Mary Sue more than Luke was, and I don’t think he was either. If anything Luke was more of one because he was just a farmhand and practiced pilot that suddenly could hold his own in a shootout and blow up Death Stars with the force. At least Rey was established as a really tough person that could take care of herself long before she discovered the force. I don’t even like TFA yet I feel compelled to defend it against these hackneyed criticisms.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

MaximRecoil said:

adywan said:

You keep going back to wikipedia to say we’re all wrong about how Mary Sue is a derogatory term used towards female characters, yet you seem to have ignored this one paragrpah in that same wiki entry

Wikipedia isn’t the source. I’ve only posted two excerpts from Wikipedia, both of which are sourced from other places, primarily this site:

http://fmwriters.com/Visionback/Issue30/marysue.htm

“Christine Scodari, a researcher in media studies from gender perspective, noticed a tendency within slash fandom to label major female characters (e.g. Nyota Uhura in the Star Trek 2009 film reboot) as “Mary Sues” because the slash fans “begrudged” how the development of the female character takes away screen time from slashable male characters.[16]”

If you excerpted Wikipedia, then that is the source. Wikipedia editors can interpolate the primary sources however they feel fit, since all writing is open to interpretation.

Only correct application of the term is relevant. Every word/term in the English language has been misapplied by someone, somewhere, countless times.

Do you believe the use of the word “decimated” to destroy a large part of something rather than to kill one out of every ten people to be a misapplication?

Like i said before, just because a word or term originated with a certain meaning does not mean that , after time, it can’t become something that becomes commonly used as a derogatory term towards a race or sex. It is more widely used as in derogatory form towards female characters that it is used in its original meaning. You only have to go on certain forums and sites to see just how many use it because they hate the “female agenda” in Hollywood as they see it. The comments section on youtube alone since TFA came out was littered with the comments using “Mary Sue” in a derogatory fashion.

The reasons given for Rey being a Mary Sue have nothing to do with her sex. And whether or not a “female agenda” resulted in the creation of a Mary Sue is a completely different argument. Rey is a Mary Sue regardless of what led to her creation. If your theory were true, people would commonly be calling all female leads in major works of fiction “Mary Sues”, yet that hasn’t happened.

It has, in some parts of the Internet.

Additionally, there wouldn’t be any male Mary Sues, but in reality, the most famous one until Rey came along was Wesley Crusher.

Gosh, you really go on about Wesley Crusher a lot.

Author
Time

yhwx said:
Holy shit, did you not read the last two sentences of that section that you just quoted. I clarified my intention there!

It doesn’t matter what you claim your intention was. The fact remains that pointing out that Wikipedia editors are primarily male is nonsensical, given that they aren’t the source of the information in the first place.

Logically, I guess, but it is still an extremely toxic attitude to take.

How can something that is logical be “toxic”?

I’d rather refer this issue to the women rather than you, thank you very much.

Since “the women” don’t define the English language, nor are they a hive mind, this statement of yours is nonsensical.

The reliable sources are based on how people generally use words.

That’s how all words in the English language are defined, with extra weight given to notable usage, such as by people like Kat Feete who is a writer, and speaks about how the term is used in the publishing world and writing community, both of which also constitute notable usage, given that it is a writing trope to begin with. Usage in e.g., YouTube comments does not constitute notable usage.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

Possessed said:

And about Luke not actually being a great pilot because he gets helped a couple times, agree you forgetting he and wedge are the only ones who even survive?

There’s a Y-wing flying away at the end too.

If only three Rebel pilots survived the DS battle, then who the heck are all these guys?

I presume they were keeping the majority of TIE fighters occupied elsewhere while designated squadrons made the trench runs, and flew off in a different direction once Luke made a successful torpedo shot.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Yeah I figured that they probably had more waves ready to come in if Red and Gold failed. Although that kind of dilutes the urgency a little bit.

EDIT: Oh wait, no it doesn’t because the Death Star was about to fire on Yavin IV. My bad.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

MaximRecoil said:

yhwx said:
Holy shit, did you not read the last two sentences of that section that you just quoted. I clarified my intention there!

It doesn’t matter what you claim your intention was. The fact remains that pointing out that Wikipedia editors are primarily male is nonsensical, given that they aren’t the source of the information in the first place.

Wikipedia editors can decide what sources to choose and how to interpolate that information, m’kay?

And please don’t “well, actually” me again and say how technically it isn’t allowed under the rules. The thing is, when a majority of people in a group are men, the group is going to collectively hold masculine viewpoints. And those viewpoints can be wrong and toxic.

Logically, I guess, but it is still an extremely toxic attitude to take.

How can something that is logical be “toxic”?

You could make an argument that eugenics is logical. It’s still toxic.

I’d rather refer this issue to the women rather than you, thank you very much.

Since “the women” don’t define the English language, nor are they a hive mind, this statement of yours is nonsensical.

The reliable sources are based on how people generally use words.

That’s how all words in the English language are defined, with extra weight given to notable usage, such as by people like Kat Feete who is a writer, and speaks about how the term is used in the publishing world and writing community, both of which also constitute notable usage, given that it is a writing trope to begin with. Usage in e.g., YouTube comments does not constitute notable usage.

Sure, there’s weight given to people with especially large and coveted megaphones. But there’s still some weight given to those who have less social standing. Otherwise, slang terms wouldn’t make it into the dictionary.

Author
Time

At some point yhwx, rather than trying to use logic with someone, you just have to give up and let them be a fool on their own.

Author
Time

Internet argument are like quicksand: Once you take a dip in, it’s very difficult to pull out.

Author
Time

yhwx said:
If you excerpted Wikipedia, then that is the source.

No, it isn’t. The information in the opening paragraph that I quoted is all included in the sources that they cited. There is no “original research” included.

Wikipedia editors can interpolate the primary sources however they feel fit, since all writing is open to interpretation.

No, it doesn’t work that way. If you write something that doesn’t reflect the source you sited, it can be removed because it is considered “original research”, and interpolation is considered “synthesis”, and is also against policy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material

Do you believe the use of the word “decimated” to destroy a large part of something rather than to kill one out of every ten people to be a misapplication?

It depends on when it was said. Correctness of an application is relative to what’s correct at the time that it was applied. Words in the English language acquire definitions based on usage, with extra weight given to notable usage, as I mentioned in my previous post.

It has, in some parts of the Internet.

“Some parts of the internet” is meaningless. It takes more than some misapplications here and there by nobodies to establish a new sense of a term.

Gosh, you really go on about Wesley Crusher a lot.

And you ignore it a lot, due to special pleading, which is a fallacy.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jeebus said:

This discussion makes me want to drive a pair of jackhammers into my eye sockets until I die and go to Hell where the jackhammers will continue pounding my brain to goo for all eternity.

FTFM

Author
Time

MaximRecoil said:

yhwx said:
If you excerpted Wikipedia, then that is the source.

No, it isn’t. The information in the opening paragraph that I quoted is all included in the sources that they cited. There is no “original research” included.

If you want to be this pedantic about it, I guess I can’t stop you.

Wikipedia editors can interpolate the primary sources however they feel fit, since all writing is open to interpretation.

No, it doesn’t work that way. If you write something that doesn’t reflect the source you sited, it can be removed because it is considered “original research”, and interpolation is considered “synthesis”, and is also against policy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material

Seems like you ignored my request to not have you explain to me the rules of Wikipedia.

Do you believe the use of the word “decimated” to destroy a large part of something rather than to kill one out of every ten people to be a misapplication?

It depends on when it was said. Correctness of an application is relative to what’s correct at the time that it was applied. Words in the English language acquire definitions based on usage, with extra weight given to notable usage, as I mentioned in my previous post.

So I guess you agree with me.

It has, in some parts of the Internet.

“Some parts of the internet” is meaningless. It takes more than some misapplications here and there by nobodies to establish a new sense of a term.

I guess I muddied the waters with talking about dictionaries and such, but honestly, I don’t care about whatever the dictionary definition of “Mary Sue” is. I just know the way it’s being used, and that’s all that matters in this argument.

Gosh, you really go on about Wesley Crusher a lot.

And you ignore it a lot, due to special pleading, which is a fallacy.

My use of a fallacy does not invalidate my argument.

Author
Time

yhwx said:
Wikipedia editors can decide what sources to choose and how to interpolate that information, m’kay?

And please don’t “well, actually” me again and say how technically it isn’t allowed under the rules. The thing is, when a majority of people in a group are men, the group is going to collectively hold masculine viewpoints. And those viewpoints can be wrong and toxic.

Take your misandry somewhere else. It doesn’t make for a valid argument.

You could make an argument that eugenics is logical. It’s still toxic.

Enforced eugenics isn’t logical, because it would inherently be a human rights violation.

Sure, there’s weight given to people with especially large and coveted megaphones. But there’s still some weight given to those who have less social standing. Otherwise, slang terms wouldn’t make it into the dictionary.

Which is why it’s considered slang to begin with, because it hasn’t reached the status of a generally accepted word.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TV’s Frink said:

NeverarGreat said:

TV’s Frink said:

NeverarGreat said:

TV’s Frink said:

I have heard many men call female characters a Mary Sue. The only time I’ve ever heard anyone call someone a Gary Stu is in a sad desperate attempt to defend their use of Mary Sue.

I previously linked to a good example of the term in use, but here are some pull quotes from the reviews for your reading pleasure:

Ok, now I’ve heard it once.

If you can show me that Mary Sue isn’t used far more often than Gary Stu, I’d love to see it.

I’m not a miracle worker 😉

Don’t tell your new friend Maxim, it will break his heart. :p

Whence came you by the assumption that we agree? Especially since I have repeatedly stated that I do not think Rey is a Mary Sue. I think the only place in which you and I disagree on this subject is that I think that the term (both male and female versions) are accurate descriptions of certain characters and as such are acceptable descriptors in certain (albeit limited) scenarios, whereas you’re probably of the opinion that the abuse of this term has made it unacceptable for anyone to use despite its descriptive utility.

That’s a place where I’m happy agreeing to disagree, and leaving it at that. 😃

DuracellEnergizer said:

Agreed.

You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)