Allways good to hear from someone who knows what he’s talking about. A military veteran gives a real world account of leadership, and why Holdo did not display good leadership while in command:
I haven’t read the link - though think Holdo demonstrated good leadership in sacrificing herself to save the remaining Rebels in those unarmed ships being easily picked off by the First Order.
I don’t really need to read the views of a military veteran to understand or appreciate this - nor do I care for a military veteran’s reasons as to why she wasn’t a feminist (going on the url link) - or indeed why some think being a feminist matters in this context - but am sure it will come in handy for those that do. Nice one.
You shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, seems an apt statement here.
I believe we should read something first before commenting on it, but anyways in response to your belief that she displayed good leadership, and the fact that you seem to believe uninformed opinion trumps actual combat and leadership experience relating to a combat situation, here goes:
Mate, it’s not a case of judging a book by it’s cover - it’s a case of no longer still being interested in the topic at hand (which to me has been done to death - and then repeated some more, and then dug up again too) - and also not being interested in the views linked in that article you posted upon reading it’s url link.
So hardly an uninformed opinion on this subject, no?
If this combat veteran believes it was poor leadership cool - I don’t. I also don’t read up other articles from combat veterans when they are unhappy with events from other films that I have no issue with either. Nor those that wish to discuss why someone wasn’t a feminist (going on the url link). Well in to those that do, if that’s their thing, though.
I don’t have the time or energy to read through every link on here - and am certainly not going to spend time on this subject which frankly… doesn’t interest me, and I don’t have a problem with.
My previous post stands as it is - and as I said in that post… fair play that your link may interest others. Nice one.
Yet, rather than conserving time and energy, and just taking a pass, you felt the need to make a statement. If you’re not interested, which is absolutely fine, why clutter up a thread with statements, that boil down to “I’m not interested”? If you’re not interested in discussing an article or a link, than don’t discuss it. It makes it so much more enjoyable for those that do, when you don’t have to wade through posts that say “I haven’t read it, and I don’t care to!”.
I made a statement that being a military veteran doesn’t necessarily mean he knows what he’s talking about in the context of your ‘Holdo did not display good leadership while in command’ - in a sci-fi film - as a statement of fact.
Nobody said it was a statement of fact.
Yet you wrote…
Allways good to hear from someone who knows what he’s talking about. A military veteran gives a real world account of leadership, and why Holdo did not display good leadership while in command:
Not why he thinks / believes / is of the opinion etc - ‘… and why Holdo did not display good leadership while in command’ - seems like a statement of fact to me.
This seems like a straw man to me, since this is a discussion forum, which generally doesn’t deal in fact, but opinion. We shouldn’t have to put “in my opinion”, “in my view”, etc. in every sentence, or risk being “attacked” by those that disagree with said opinion of making statements of fact, a discussion technique, which is generally used by detractors to derail a discussion, and to deflect criticism by focussing heavily on form rather than content.
Then perhaps you should make yourself clearer when stating ‘facts’ - and then claiming it to be opinion later. We’ve already discussed the content of your 1st post - no derailments or deflections here, is there? (that’s rhetorical - though as previous questions have gone unanswered… I’m not holding out for any).
Feel free to carry this conversation on - though it may be impinging on the enjoyment of others, wading through posts like this, no?
It may be, but I feel the need to defend the article, and to invite people to read it, and form an opinion, which may be positive, negative, or anything in between, but one thing is for sure: it will be informed. 😛
Like I said before, fair play to you for posting it up for those that are interested. I think my post fell in into the ‘anything in between’ you mention above (and you’d like me not to discuss) - I just don’t find a combat veteran’s ‘expert opinion’ on why Holdo wasn’t a feminist relevant or informed given the context of your initial post on the matter. Good for those that do, though.
Well like I said, you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover. The fact that you don’t find this author’s opinion informed based on my initial post, is hearsay, and is no better than someone saying TLJ sucks, because he heard someone’s synopsis of the film (in this case mine), and didn’t like it much. I’m sure you would have jumped on the first person, who would have stated RJ isn’t informed on the subject of Star Wars without seeing the film first, and rightfully so. The best you can do in such circumstances, is to say that: “you didn’t find my post, or the title of the article very enticing, and thus haven’t read it, but in order to form an informed opinion on the article and the author, I would have to read it.”
Why twist words mate? What is wrong with anything I said in here? We discussed the link (of which you later mentioned), and now you’re presuppositioning what I’d say in different instances? Jumping on people?
All on an article with a combat veteran’s ‘expert opinion’ on why Holdo isn’t a feminist and that her leadership is poor - in a sci-fi film - isn’t something I want to read, given the context of the conversation. I said why, gave an opinion as to why leadership wasn’t poor - said hoped that people would find your link interesting - which is ‘hearsay’ to you, apparently. Far too many posts on it later you’ve stated to me ‘don’t discuss it’ - and now on how to post.
Wow.
It’s just a link to an article that someone didn’t want to read and explained why - repeatedly, and seemingly in this boring circular ‘debate’. Get over yourself.
(though I’m sure you’ll be posting to carry it on…)