oojason

Heart - Barracuda (1977)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0OX_8YvFxA

‘Manic Street Preachers - Distant Colours (Live Acoustic)’…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv3lz9249G8&

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

For anyone who studies computer science, Countess Ada is a serious kickass Goddess.

Indeed, quite a family, and quite a contribution in her own right there.

Back off human, it’s mine!

from https://imgur.com/gallery/cwPSNo5

SilverWook said:

I think this particular Padme doll hit toy shelves ahead of the movie as well. Toy aisles have no spoiler alerts.

😃 That must have been a kicker for those unlucky enough to have come across that and similar others - also for it’s bad quality / scary looking death doll features too - especially on the ‘Unmask the Queen’ pics!

Clement Attlee (1883-1967)

Attlee presided over the 1945 - 1951 Labour government. This was the most significant reforming administration of 20th century Britain. It introduced the National Health Service, nationalised one fifth of the British economy, and granted independence to India.

Attlee was born on 2 January 1883. He had a conventional middle-class upbringing, and after going to Oxford University began a career as a barrister. However, he abandoned this to become a social worker in the East End of London, and later joined the Labour Party. He served in the army in World War One.

Attlee rose through the rank and file of the Labour Party, becoming party leader in 1935. His quiet, unassuming personality led many to underestimate him. Plots to replace him were a regular occurrence throughout the next two decades, but Attlee had the self-assurance not to be perturbed by the machinations of his rivals or opponents.

During World War Two, Attlee was a highly successful deputy prime minister in Churchill’s coalition government. Then in 1945, when Labour swept to power in a landslide election victory, his combination of social conscience and staunch patriotism encapsulated Labour’s experiment in democratic socialism. This led to the creation of the National Health Service and the nationalisation of coal mining and the steel industry. Attlee saw his role of premier as that of an umpire, reconciling the opinions of a cabinet composed of powerful personalities. He played a critical role in supporting Bevin’s Cold War diplomacy, and in accelerating independence for India, a cause which he had supported for many years.

The most enduring legacy of the Attlee years is the welfare state. The Labour government implemented many of the ideas expounded in the Beveridge report, a 1942 official study recommending a welfare state to insure people from ‘the cradle to the grave’. It became a national phenomenon, a blueprint for the creation of the ‘New Jerusalem’: a prosperous yet egalitarian society.

Attlee’s welfare state reflected this ambition. All taxpayers contributed to social insurance, and everyone in the country was covered by it. Levels of benefits were standardised. The retirement pension was open to all and could now be claimed at the age of sixty-five rather than seventy. Under a scheme of family allowances, parents would receive a weekly payment upon the birth of their second child (and this would increase with any subsequent children).

Another significant measure was the creation of the National Health Service in July 1948. In replacing the ramshackle and localised pre-war system of healthcare, and in committing the state to treat people free of charge no matter their condition, the NHS quickly became enshrined as a cornerstone of national life.

Clement Attlee’s post-war Labour government also built more than a million homes - a generation was introduced to the joys of indoor toilets, front and/or rear gardens, and where possible a tree could be seen from every window - available to many low-income families for the first time ever. Also, under the National Assistance Act of 1948, local authorities now had a duty “to provide emergency temporary accommodation for families which become homeless through no fault of their own.”

The government pursued radical policies elsewhere. Efforts were made to improve education for the mass of the people through the 1944 Education Act, and – in an attempt to avoid the high unemployment of the thirties – key sectors of the economy were nationalised. The most important were heavy industries like coal and steel, and infrastructure such as railways. The nationalisation programme stood alongside the welfare state as the major legacy of the Attlee Years, enduring for more than three decades.

He died on 8 October 1967.

^ mainly from the BBC.
 

Wikipedia page for Clement Attlee - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Attlee#Housing

The New Yorker’s take (opinion article) on Clement Attlee - link

No.10 Gov Site page - through the Web Archive site

^ Superb mate - really nicely done and a great choice for those looking for a Gridndhouse set of covers, or covers in general.

This has been posted elsewhere, though is somewhat relevant to the thread subject…
 

‘5 THINGS J.J. ABRAMS MUST DO IN STAR WARS EPISODE 9!!!’

by HelloGreedo - yes, some it of may well be a spoof of sorts… 😉

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YBG_g3Zumo

‘5 THINGS J.J. ABRAMS MUST DO IN STAR WARS EPISODE 9!!!’

by HelloGreedo - yes, some it of may well be a spoof of sorts… 😉

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YBG_g3Zumo

Very much looking forward to seeing what some of the talented Editors on here come up with for Solo - seems there’ll be some considerable additional content to pour over for possible inclusion - nice one 😃

Oppstryn, Norway…

Love that - and the mist effect too, nice work mate.

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

Jay said:

Handman said:

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site.

By content, you mean opinions and such, not “Let’s get back on topic”? Obvious question is obvious, but I’d like a little more clarification on this point if possible.

Correct.

Warbler said:

Jay said:

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site. We’re individuals with our own thoughts and views.

Not when they do this:

oojason said:

I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.

When they do the above, they are posting as a moderator.

Right. Given recent activity regarding threads being driven off the rails, we’ve been a bit more sensitive regarding threads staying on track. Maybe in this case it got a bit blurred because oojason was expressing his opinion as a member who disagrees with DrDre, but also providing direction as a moderator for the sake of the thread. When those two things seem to be working in concert (which I don’t think was oojason’s intent), it creates the impression of using moderator authority to “win” a debate. I’ve been accused of the same thing in other threads.

I’ll discuss it with the mods, but perhaps we need a policy whereby any moderator involved in a discussion should recuse themselves from moderator duties within that discussion and leave it to another moderator.

As always, OP sets the tone, and we usually won’t act on off topic discussion without their request unless it’s getting out of control.

When a mod directs me, threatens with a ban, and calls me toxic in the same post, it becomes very hard not to percieve this as personal animosity and bias in mod action, especially considering oojason vehemently disagreed with me, whilst expressing his disdain for my opinion, and also considering the fact that the OP had at that point not chimed in, whilst the discussion was still on the topic of toxicity in the fanbase in my humble opinion. So, the claim that I was derailing the thread seems a bit excessive in this context.

There was no threat of a ban - please direct me to where there was a threat of a ban made. I believe I said…

As stated above:

I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.

…is a pretty clear threat of a ban. You can’t have your cake and eat it.

I was going to issue you a warning and maybe temp-lock the thread to cool down. Yet you state that was a threat to ban… ok. and then ‘you can’t have your cake and eat it’… right…

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

TV’s Frink said:

In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.

Is creating a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad fair game? In my view it is. That’s the way free speech works, and that right should be defended in my view, even if you disagree with what is depicted. If creating a caricature of a Prophet is fair game, then so is creating a caricature of the Star Wars character Rey. If it was a caricature of Daisy Ridley, that attempts to ridicule her personally, then I would agree with you.

That’s free speech - not toxicity. For many people they would consider a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad to be toxic, and in my view rightly so.

Well, I disagree. The only toxicity I see is in those that cannot accept the foundations of a free, and democratic society. As such, any point of view that is too foreign relative to someone’s own, is considered to be toxic, evil, communist, degraded, blasphemy, or any other term used to label people, or put them in a box for having a different, or controversial opinion.

Like I said above - it’s okay that you do disagree. Nice one.

I have empathy with anyone who’d offended by a caricature of the Prophet Mohammad - and can see why such a picture would be toxic. Hey, I live in a free democratic society and accept it’s foundations too - as do many who may think it toxic too - or even those who don’t.

Now let’s get back on topic re taking a stand against toxic fandom - not re the Prophet Muhammad and communism being aligned with evil, degraded and blasphemy - your words.
 

It was on topic, since I specifically criticized those that abuse the term toxic for their own agenda, perpetuating toxicity within the fandom. Toxicity ends with respecting different, sometimes more outspoken points of view. Labeling people toxic for having an opinion does not.

No mate, it wasn’t.

I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.

It’s not this first time you’ve twisted my words recently to try and make them into something else - and I think it’s the 3rd time of late I’ve had to asked you (along with others) to stay on topic / not derail a thread. This time was you introducing the fairly toxic and incendiary subject of caricatures of Mohammad and then a statement on the evils of communism, later passed off ‘analogies’ - which would have very likely taken the thread further away from the thread subject.

Likely? So this was preemptive mod action, just in case the thread got further away from the thread subject? This does not seem to adhere to the policy of not modding a thread’s content unless requested by the OP. Only two people responded to the Mohammed/communism analogies, which were you and Frink. The debate still centered on toxic fandom. As such, I don’t see how these few posts constitute derailing a thread outside of you personally not liking my analogies to the point of calling them toxic, thus using your own personal point of view and your mod status to forcably shut down the discussion on this matter.

As for disagreeing with you… you seemed to take issue with what I posted, not the other way around.

No, I took issue with the latter part of Kittythatsit’s post, which you endorsed. I argued why I disagreed, feeling some fans are using the label “toxic” to smear their opponents, which led to the communism analogy. Frink chimed in on how a caricature of Rey was not acceptable, after which I used the Mohammed caricature as an analogy. You then claimed Mohammed caricatures are toxic, and apparently so are my posts by association.

On more than one occasion I said it’s okay that you disagree, yes? Disdain for your opinion…? Doesn’t seem that’s the case at all.

Calling someone toxic for his opinion seems pretty consistent with disdain to me, and ironically consistent with my argument, that some fans are using the term “toxic” to smear their opponents.

I’ve stated it before, but there’s a highly intolerant atmosphere here towards critics of the new canon. People and sites are painted with the same brush, and labeled sexist, misogynist, toxic, and what not. I take issue with that, and with the people that perpetuate, or endorse such behaviour.

Over time many critics have been bullied out of this site, where biased mod action in these people’s view and my own has been a factor, with specifically you coming down hard on anyone with a strongly negative opinion, where it is often not clear whether you’re expressing your personal opinion, or acting as a mod of the site. Jay’s politics thread has been a breath of fresh air, in what is sadly becoming an echo chamber of extremely negative opinions towards a large section of the fandom.

I tried to get things back to civil discourse with an apology, but it seems, it sadly was to no avail.

Mate, you’re repeating yourself again, as said before I stated it’s no problem you disagree with me or have a different opinion.

And as posted to you before - I asked you to get back on topic - not end the discussion…

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

TV’s Frink said:

In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.

Is creating a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad fair game? In my view it is. That’s the way free speech works, and that right should be defended in my view, even if you disagree with what is depicted. If creating a caricature of a Prophet is fair game, then so is creating a caricature of the Star Wars character Rey. If it was a caricature of Daisy Ridley, that attempts to ridicule her personally, then I would agree with you.

That’s free speech - not toxicity. For many people they would consider a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad to be toxic, and in my view rightly so.

Well, I disagree. The only toxicity I see is in those that cannot accept the foundations of a free, and democratic society. As such, any point of view that is too foreign relative to someone’s own, is considered to be toxic, evil, communist, degraded, blasphemy, or any other term used to label people, or put them in a box for having a different, or controversial opinion.

Like I said above - it’s okay that you do disagree. Nice one.

I have empathy with anyone who’d offended by a caricature of the Prophet Mohammad - and can see why such a picture would be toxic. Hey, I live in a free democratic society and accept it’s foundations too - as do many who may think it toxic too - or even those who don’t.

Now let’s get back on topic re taking a stand against toxic fandom - not re the Prophet Muhammad and communism being aligned with evil, degraded and blasphemy - your words.
 

It was on topic, since I specifically criticized those that abuse the term toxic for their own agenda, perpetuating toxicity within the fandom. Toxicity ends with respecting different, sometimes more outspoken points of view. Labeling people toxic for having an opinion does not.

No mate, it wasn’t.

I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.

This was after me stating…

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

TV’s Frink said:

In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.

Is creating a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad fair game? In my view it is. That’s the way free speech works, and that right should be defended in my view, even if you disagree with what is depicted. If creating a caricature of a Prophet is fair game, then so is creating a caricature of the Star Wars character Rey. If it was a caricature of Daisy Ridley, that attempts to ridicule her personally, then I would agree with you.

That’s free speech - not toxicity. For many people they would consider a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad to be toxic, and in my view rightly so.

Well, I disagree. The only toxicity I see is in those that cannot accept the foundations of a free, and democratic society. As such, any point of view that is too foreign relative to someone’s own, is considered to be toxic, evil, communist, degraded, blasphemy, or any other term used to label people, or put them in a box for having a different, or controversial opinion.

Like I said above - it’s okay that you do disagree. Nice one.

I have empathy with anyone who’d offended by a caricature of the Prophet Mohammad - and can see why such a picture would be toxic. Hey, I live in a free democratic society and accept it’s foundations too - as do many who may think it toxic too - or even those who don’t.

Now let’s get back on topic re taking a stand against toxic fandom - not re the Prophet Muhammad and communism being aligned with evil, degraded and blasphemy - your words.
 

Seems pretty clear that isn’t ‘using your authority to end the debate’. That’s a mod asking you to keep to the thread topic without bringing further inflammatory and toxic references into the debate - though this has already previously been explained to you.
 

You state many critics have been bullied off the site - with me coming down hard on anyone with a negative opinion… again, it’s been explained that I don’t have a problem with anyone’s differing opinion - in this very thread I’ve stated it’s okay that you disagree, why wouldn’t it be? We’re a discussion forum. A handful of members have been temp-banned for threadcrapping and consistently derailing threads - though only after repeated requests to stop, followed by warnings, followed by temp-bans, and on a rare occasion a perm-ban when they then attacked the mods and site. Again, feel free to PM me and discuss the issue further, should you wish.

It seems you may have some issues with how I moderate, with myself or my views - if so please don’t reply to my posts looking to kick off, twist my words, and make false claims then offer a backhanded apology. If you have issues with me, and it’s clear that you do, then PM me or feel free to report me to Jay or the others mods. It’ll save other threads being derailed by this sort of thing - the very thing I was trying to avoid in a decent and intriguing thread. Yet here we are.

I’m going to temp-lock this thread now. I’ll leave it for Jay and other mods to decide how to clean it up, or address it - or just re-open it later. Apologies to screams in the void and anyone else wishing to partake in the actual thread discussion.

DrDre said:

Jay said:

Handman said:

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site.

By content, you mean opinions and such, not “Let’s get back on topic”? Obvious question is obvious, but I’d like a little more clarification on this point if possible.

Correct.

Warbler said:

Jay said:

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site. We’re individuals with our own thoughts and views.

Not when they do this:

oojason said:

I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.

When they do the above, they are posting as a moderator.

Right. Given recent activity regarding threads being driven off the rails, we’ve been a bit more sensitive regarding threads staying on track. Maybe in this case it got a bit blurred because oojason was expressing his opinion as a member who disagrees with DrDre, but also providing direction as a moderator for the sake of the thread. When those two things seem to be working in concert (which I don’t think was oojason’s intent), it creates the impression of using moderator authority to “win” a debate. I’ve been accused of the same thing in other threads.

I’ll discuss it with the mods, but perhaps we need a policy whereby any moderator involved in a discussion should recuse themselves from moderator duties within that discussion and leave it to another moderator.

As always, OP sets the tone, and we usually won’t act on off topic discussion without their request unless it’s getting out of control.

When a mod directs me, threatens with a ban, and calls me toxic in the same post, it becomes very hard not to percieve this as personal animosity and bias in mod action, especially considering oojason vehemently disagreed with me, whilst expressing his disdain for my opinion, and also considering the fact that the OP had at that point not chimed in, whilst the discussion was still on the topic of toxicity in the fanbase in my humble opinion. So, the claim that I was derailing the thread seems a bit excessive in this context.

There was no threat of a ban - please direct me to where there was a threat of a ban made. I believe I said…

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

TV’s Frink said:

In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.

Is creating a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad fair game? In my view it is. That’s the way free speech works, and that right should be defended in my view, even if you disagree with what is depicted. If creating a caricature of a Prophet is fair game, then so is creating a caricature of the Star Wars character Rey. If it was a caricature of Daisy Ridley, that attempts to ridicule her personally, then I would agree with you.

That’s free speech - not toxicity. For many people they would consider a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad to be toxic, and in my view rightly so.

Well, I disagree. The only toxicity I see is in those that cannot accept the foundations of a free, and democratic society. As such, any point of view that is too foreign relative to someone’s own, is considered to be toxic, evil, communist, degraded, blasphemy, or any other term used to label people, or put them in a box for having a different, or controversial opinion.

Like I said above - it’s okay that you do disagree. Nice one.

I have empathy with anyone who’d offended by a caricature of the Prophet Mohammad - and can see why such a picture would be toxic. Hey, I live in a free democratic society and accept it’s foundations too - as do many who may think it toxic too - or even those who don’t.

Now let’s get back on topic re taking a stand against toxic fandom - not re the Prophet Muhammad and communism being aligned with evil, degraded and blasphemy - your words.
 

It was on topic, since I specifically criticized those that abuse the term toxic for their own agenda, perpetuating toxicity within the fandom. Toxicity ends with respecting different, sometimes more outspoken points of view. Labeling people toxic for having an opinion does not.

No mate, it wasn’t.

I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.

It’s not this first time you’ve twisted my words recently to try and make them into something else - and I think it’s the 3rd time of late I’ve had to asked you (along with others) to stay on topic / not derail a thread. This time was you introducing the fairly toxic and incendiary subject of caricatures of Mohammad and then a statement on the evils of communism, later passed off ‘analogies’ - which would have very likely taken the thread further away from the thread subject.

As for disagreeing with you… you seemed to take issue with what I posted, not the other way around. On more than one occasion I said it’s okay that you disagree, yes? Disdain for your opinion…? Doesn’t seem that’s the case at all.

Personal animosity and bias? Mate, you seem to have a problem with mod requests or mods having opinions - here and in the past, or inferring things that just aren’t there. Or recently where you started to twist my words and also had some sort of pop about me posting articles or something - before I cut short our last conversation. You seem to have a problem with my views or me - and that’s okay - yet stop twisting my words and making shite up - let your argument or views stand on their own merits.

There’s more info in my reply to your PM - correcting and highlighting more wrongful accusations from you not based in fact.

DrDre said:

Apparently the analogies I used, are too far out there, so I’ll leave those for another time, and place.

However, in the vein of my original argument, is toxicity a one way street? Are only those that harshly criticize LFM, Disney, the films, and the characters toxic? Is “toxic” the new “sexist”, to be labeled on anyone with a strong negative opinion of the current canon?

No, it isn’t. Though this has already been answered, yes?

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

Kellythatsit said:

These people deserve to be called out as the abhorrent jerks they are. Seriously, this is a series of fictional films! People are sending death threats and behaving like absolute nobs just because someone made a star war they didn’t like, or wrote a story they felt was boring, or were a bit confused by all the long words they used.

It’s time these “fans” chilled the **** out and realised their sense of entitlement doesn’t give them the right to troll and abuse people whose only “crime” was to try to make something others would enjoy. It sickens me to see Daisy Ridley and Kelly Marie Tran forced to close down their Instagram accounts because idiots think it’s their right to post hateful dribble at them when they post a photo, just because they were in Star Wars.

Meanwhile shows like RFR and Geeks and Gamers pander their self important drivel to these dregs of the community in a wholly transparent attempt to get more subscriptions and likes.

Well said mate ✊

I disagree with the latter part. Once you start conflating critical platforms such as RFR and Geeks and Gamers with toxic fandom and the like, you’re on a very slippery slope. Similar tactics were used against many liberals in the cold war. Suddenly, everyone who’s on the opposite side is at best potentially a commie/toxic, or at worst guilty by association.

That’s ok that you don’t agree. For many they aren’t considered critical platforms - they are considered toxic. Some may think they are a little of both or varying degrees of. That people enjoy them and like them is up to them - personally I think they’re toxic.

I also like to think many of the people on here, and SW fandom in large, can differentiate between genuine, balanced, legitimate, or informative criticisms of a film(s) - and alternative views therein - and the type of toxic content often found on those and similar platforms (as well as a lack of genuine, balanced, legitimate, or informative criticism on them). Though again, if people like them, or believe they do the find above in those platforms, or aren’t interested in those things… then fair play - it’s up to them.
 

If I want to see shite like this…

(^ the cover used by Geeks and Gamers for their ‘The Last Jedi - Disney Basically Admits That Rey is a Mary Sue’ video (Disney didn’t ‘admit’ anything))

… and numerous articles on Kathleen Kennedy perceivingly ‘failing’, or doing something ‘wrong’, or not to their liking, or have words put in her mouth… I’ll know where to go. Until then I stay away from the toxic shite like that - and can get what I consider to more quality, balanced insight and actual factual-based criticism elsewhere.

Just my two-penneth.
 

… And I tire easily of circular repetitive conversations where one side of the ‘debate’ can’t remember, or doesn’t acknowledge, questions which have already been addressed and answered, all just a few hours before.
 

Edit - apologies, this was posted before seeing screams in the void’s last post.
 

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

TV’s Frink said:

In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.

Is creating a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad fair game? In my view it is. That’s the way free speech works, and that right should be defended in my view, even if you disagree with what is depicted. If creating a caricature of a Prophet is fair game, then so is creating a caricature of the Star Wars character Rey. If it was a caricature of Daisy Ridley, that attempts to ridicule her personally, then I would agree with you.

That’s free speech - not toxicity. For many people they would consider a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad to be toxic, and in my view rightly so.

Well, I disagree. The only toxicity I see is in those that cannot accept the foundations of a free, and democratic society. As such, any point of view that is too foreign relative to someone’s own, is considered to be toxic, evil, communist, degraded, blasphemy, or any other term used to label people, or put them in a box for having a different, or controversial opinion.

Like I said above - it’s okay that you do disagree. Nice one.

I have empathy with anyone who’d offended by a caricature of the Prophet Mohammad - and can see why such a picture would be toxic. Hey, I live in a free democratic society and accept it’s foundations too - as do many who may think it toxic too - or even those who don’t.

Now let’s get back on topic re taking a stand against toxic fandom - not re the Prophet Muhammad and communism being aligned with evil, degraded and blasphemy - your words.
 

It was on topic, since I specifically criticized those that abuse the term toxic for their own agenda, perpetuating toxicity within the fandom. Toxicity ends with respecting different, sometimes more outspoken points of view. Labeling people toxic for having an opinion does not.

No mate, it wasn’t.

You brought up ‘Is creating a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad fair game? In my view it is’ in trying to shift the debate; bringing up & aligning opinion with free speech - with your opinion it is ‘fair game’ to put Rey’s head on a hulk body.

You then stated ‘The only toxicity I see is in those that cannot accept the foundations of a free, and democratic society. As such, any point of view that is too foreign relative to someone’s own, is considered to be toxic, evil, communist, degraded, blasphemy’…

The only one in here - bar some youtube channels, in the last page or so - being toxic - is you.

As for your claim of ‘Toxicity ends with respecting different, sometimes more outspoken points of view’ - seems with certain youtube channels that ‘respect’ for something ‘different’ didn’t last long at all - if it was ever there in the first place.

I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

TV’s Frink said:

In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.

Is creating a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad fair game? In my view it is. That’s the way free speech works, and that right should be defended in my view, even if you disagree with what is depicted. If creating a caricature of a Prophet is fair game, then so is creating a caricature of the Star Wars character Rey. If it was a caricature of Daisy Ridley, that attempts to ridicule her personally, then I would agree with you.

That’s free speech - not toxicity. For many people they would consider a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad to be toxic, and in my view rightly so.

Well, I disagree. The only toxicity I see is in those that cannot accept the foundations of a free, and democratic society. As such, any point of view that is too foreign relative to someone’s own, is considered to be toxic, evil, communist, degraded, blasphemy, or any other term used to label people, or put them in a box for having a different, or controversial opinion.

Like I said above - it’s okay that you do disagree. Nice one.

I have empathy with anyone who’d offended by a caricature of the Prophet Mohammad - and can see why such a picture would be toxic. Hey, I live in a free democratic society and accept it’s foundations too - as do many who may think it toxic too - or even those who don’t.

Now let’s get back on topic re taking a stand against toxic fandom - not re the Prophet Muhammad and communism being aligned with evil, degraded and blasphemy - your words.
 

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Warbler said:

Kellythatsit said:

Seriously, this is a series of fictional films!

We’ve nicknamed a whole generation of people based on this “series of fictional films” Perhaps they are a little more special than other series of fictional films.

Used in the context of ‘People are sending death threats and behaving like absolute nobs just because someone made a star war they didn’t like’ it seems fair enough, yes?

‘Seriously, this is a series of fictional films!’ - That’s the bit you have decided to take issue with? Fair enough…

 

I agree sending death threats is totally unacceptable. Anyone that does so should be prosecuted. I agree harassing the actors and forcing them to shut down their Facebook pages is totally unacceptable. As for behaving like abosolute nobs, I’d have know exactly what you refer to before condemning them.

and you thought you’d learn this by taking issue with ‘Seriously, this is a series of fictional films’? Okay, good luck with that.

You may be better off asking ‘what are people doing to behave like absolute nobs’? or similar, yes?

Warbler said:

Kellythatsit said:

Seriously, this is a series of fictional films!

We’ve nicknamed a whole generation of people based on this “series of fictional films” Perhaps they are a little more special than other series of fictional films.

Used in the context of ‘People are sending death threats and behaving like absolute nobs just because someone made a star war they didn’t like’ it seems fair enough, yes?

‘Seriously, this is a series of fictional films!’ - That’s the bit you have decided to take issue with? Fair enough… in a thread about taking a stand against toxic fandom.

DrDre said:

TV’s Frink said:

In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.

Is creating a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad fair game? In my view it is. That’s the way free speech works, and that right should be defended in my view, even if you disagree with what is depicted. If creating a caricature of a Prophet is fair game, then so is creating a caricature of the Star Wars character Rey. If it was a caricature of Daisy Ridley, that attempts to ridicule her personally, then I would agree with you.

That’s free speech - not toxicity. For many people they would consider a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad to be toxic, and in my view rightly so.

TV’s Frink said:

In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.

Same for many people I imagine.

As well as the constant Kennedy bashing - much of it not based in fact - and without balance, and with words literally put in her mouth - for effect. And money.

The whole premise of certain channels seems to be there are enough people out there that they can make from money from saying any old tat to certain demographic of Star Wars fans - true or not - without balance or fact - by just focusing on a few key words, Mary Sue, Kathleen Kennedy, TLJ sucks, Rian Johnson, Disney sucks, sjws etc.

A quick look at the videos on certain channels back it up.

Yep, they seem pretty toxic.

DrDre said:

oojason said:

Kellythatsit said:

These people deserve to be called out as the abhorrent jerks they are. Seriously, this is a series of fictional films! People are sending death threats and behaving like absolute nobs just because someone made a star war they didn’t like, or wrote a story they felt was boring, or were a bit confused by all the long words they used.

It’s time these “fans” chilled the **** out and realised their sense of entitlement doesn’t give them the right to troll and abuse people whose only “crime” was to try to make something others would enjoy. It sickens me to see Daisy Ridley and Kelly Marie Tran forced to close down their Instagram accounts because idiots think it’s their right to post hateful dribble at them when they post a photo, just because they were in Star Wars.

Meanwhile shows like RFR and Geeks and Gamers pander their self important drivel to these dregs of the community in a wholly transparent attempt to get more subscriptions and likes.

Well said mate ✊

I disagree with the latter part. Once you start conflating critical platforms such as RFR and Geeks and Gamers with toxic fandom and the like, you’re on a very slippery slope. Similar tactics were used against many liberals in the cold war. Suddenly, everyone who’s on the opposite side is at best potentially a commie/toxic, or at worst guilty by association.

That’s ok that you don’t agree. For many they aren’t considered critical platforms - they are considered toxic. Some may think they are a little of both or varying degrees of. That people enjoy them and like them is up to them - personally I think they’re toxic.

I also like to think many of the people on here, and SW fandom in large, can differentiate between genuine, balanced, legitimate, or informative criticisms of a film(s) - and alternative views therein - and the type of toxic content often found on those and similar platforms (as well as a lack of genuine, balanced, legitimate, or informative criticism on them). Though again, if people like them, or believe they do the find above in those platforms, or aren’t interested in those things… then fair play - it’s up to them.
 

If I want to see shite like this…

(^ the cover used by Geeks and Gamers for their ‘The Last Jedi - Disney Basically Admits That Rey is a Mary Sue’ video (Disney didn’t ‘admit’ anything))

… and numerous articles on Kathleen Kennedy perceivingly ‘failing’, or doing something ‘wrong’, or not to their liking, or have words put in her mouth… I’ll know where to go. Until then I stay away from the toxic shite like that - and can get what I consider to more quality, balanced insight and actual factual-based criticism elsewhere.

Just my two-penneth.
 

Kellythatsit said:

These people deserve to be called out as the abhorrent jerks they are. Seriously, this is a series of fictional films! People are sending death threats and behaving like absolute nobs just because someone made a star war they didn’t like, or wrote a story they felt was boring, or were a bit confused by all the long words they used.

It’s time these “fans” chilled the **** out and realised their sense of entitlement doesn’t give them the right to troll and abuse people whose only “crime” was to try to make something others would enjoy. It sickens me to see Daisy Ridley and Kelly Marie Tran forced to close down their Instagram accounts because idiots think it’s their right to post hateful dribble at them when they post a photo, just because they were in Star Wars.

Meanwhile shows like RFR and Geeks and Gamers pander their self important drivel to these dregs of the community in a wholly transparent attempt to get more subscriptions and likes.

Well said mate ✊