Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 94 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 4
Set Bookmark
Tomalak
Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 7:55pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: That Hope Is You, Part 2

I stopped watching this garbage mid-way through this season, but I still come back for the joy of seeing Jammer slate it in the reviews. Thanks, Jammer. If anything will get me watching again it would be a really positive review ... I'll not hold my breath.
Set Bookmark
Tomalak
Thu, Jan 7, 2021, 6:42am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: There Is a Tide...

It says it all that the writers have managed to drop in an attack on capitalism so juvenile that even socialists here think it's dumb.
Set Bookmark
Tomalak
Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 3:24pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: Terra Firma, Part 2

I am not a fan of Discovery at all, but I would say three of the last four episodes were decent. I really like the Mirror Universe.

But I agree strongly with Jammer that the schmaltz was silly for all the reasons he gives. Even the schmaltz around Mirror Detmer's death was a bit much. This is a character who has had few lines in our universe. Why would we feel anything about her evil counterpart dying?

I also really didn't like the idea that Georgiou was a "badass" - even said in a jokey way by the bridge crew in our universe. It just doesn't work within the Star Trek universe that the crew would admire a cruel mass murderer and slave owner who constantly talked about butchering people.

Note that it wasn't that they admired her despite these things, or thought that she used to be evil but had changed. No, they think those things mean she was a "bad-ass". It's a bit like saying Dr Mengele or the leader of ISIS or someone is a "bad-ass". If that comparison seems ridiculous, it's only because Georgiou is more like a Marvel villain than a real life evil human being - not something that would have happened back in the days when Star Trek took itself seriously.
Set Bookmark
Tomalak
Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 10:02am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: The Sanctuary

Huh? Bastard is a matter of taste but when did Tomalak lie or cheat?
Set Bookmark
Tomalak
Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 9:06am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: The Sanctuary

People don't take kindly to baseless accusations that they are foaming at the mouth ranters with a phobia. Funny that. How baffling it all is.

Number of posts by Booming on this site: Hundreds
Number of threads on this site without Booming accusing people of white supremacy, transphobia etc.: 0
Set Bookmark
Tomalak
Mon, Dec 7, 2020, 11:43am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: The Sanctuary

(Janey not Stacy.)
Set Bookmark
Tomalak
Mon, Dec 7, 2020, 11:26am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: The Sanctuary

"This is the very first episode ever which included a transperson and a few issues connected to that."

28 years ago The Next Generation had one as the main guest character. It's not a new idea at all - just one handled with characteristic lack of deft by the Discovery writers.

"Of course people will discuss those issues. Dismissively calling a debate about trans issues those "usual debates about woke identity politics" as if that is all the struggles of transpeople are is a pretty bad thing to say."

The episode suggests the exact configuration of 2020's transgender politics, with people asserting their pronouns to colleagues in a heartfelt way, will be in place in 3188. Depending on your politics you can think that in 1,168 years it would be way too small a deal for anyone to even need to mention it in this way. Or perhaps you think that we're in the grips of a barmy fad, complete with puberty blockers for children, that has zero chance of continuing for 12 years let alone 1,200 years. But what seems ridiculous as others have said is inserting a 2020 political anachronism into 3188. Star Trek has historically done this stuff much better: e.g. Chekov was a proud Russian but didn't indulge in Cold War rhetoric that would soon have dated the show. Even at the time it would have seemed utterly implausible that things would be so similar in 1968 and 300 years later.

"This is an open discussion board, nobody has to cater to your likes and dislikes."

As I've suggested before, if someone could read a post here and not even know it was discussing a Star Trek episode/the Star Trek universe then it's gone way off topic and should be brought back on topic. Jammer has said he agrees. Far too many posts above don't keep to that rule. Obviously those of us who come here for discussion of Star Trek episodes can't force you to play ball, and Jammer has made clear he doesn't have the time to either, but I'm certainly going to encourage people to remember what this site is for, and give a nod of appreciation when people like Stacy do so too.
Set Bookmark
Tomalak
Sun, Dec 6, 2020, 7:59pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: The Sanctuary

Personally I thought the writers wading in on the modish pronouns debate was just pathetic of them - why didn't they also talk about whether the 2020 election was stolen and the Pfizer vaccine? But I mainly just agree with Janey that it's a shame these boards are being hijacked by political debates on woke issues, week after week. If I watch an old DS9 episode I will easily find 30 or more insightful comments on the episode, and that is often a joy. If I watch a Discovery episode I'll be lucky to get even 30 comments on the episode, and all will be interspersed with hundreds of comments that are just the usual woke identity politics debates.
Set Bookmark
Tomalak
Sat, Dec 5, 2020, 5:49pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: Unification III

Chris, I tend to agree. I would rather watch a DS9 or VOY given a 1.5 by Jammer than a Discovery he gives a 2.5 or a 3 to. I think there has been a bit of devaluation of the currency.
Set Bookmark
Tomalak
Fri, Dec 4, 2020, 6:44am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: Unification III

Booming, two weeks ago you pledged to avoid in future the personal arguments that have swamped so many other threads on this forum, and always seemed to involve you. I wondered how it's working out so far?
Set Bookmark
Tomalak
Fri, Dec 4, 2020, 6:39am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S1: Past Prologue

I thought it was good to have the Duras sisters along. But I found it questionable that they made such a fuss about handing over their weapons, even reacting physically. If they had an ounce of sense they would have kept a low profile while trying to conduct nefarious deals, as criminals try to. Instead, their actions immediately lead to a discussion between Sisko and Odo about whether they should be locked up right away - and it's easy to see how Sisko and Odo could have justified it given their attack on the security officer. Maybe they're just meant to be dumb villains, lacking self-control, but that they would have risen so high while being so dumb is itself questionable.
Set Bookmark
Tomalak
Thu, Dec 3, 2020, 1:05pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S5: Unification

"I wonder how much better the encounter could've been if it were Tomalak instead of Sela. It's disappointing that he didn't resurface during seasons 4-6."

I couldn't agree more. Such a waste.
Set Bookmark
Tomalak
Thu, Dec 3, 2020, 7:15am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: Unification III

The fact Space Jesus (arguably?) cries a lot is the least of the character's/show's problems I would say. She's a superhero movie protagonist dropped into the Star Trek universe and it doesn't work.
Set Bookmark
Tomalak
Sun, Nov 29, 2020, 10:22am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: Unification III

Pro tip for the Discovery writers. The word momentarily means "for a moment" not "in a moment", as they apparently think. If I momentarily distract you it means that I do it for a second or so, not that I will do it in a second or so from now.
Set Bookmark
Tomalak
Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 7:32am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: Die Trying

@Omi, while I agree with your post, Booming has made clear above his intention to behave differently in future. So I suggest we not dredge up past behaviour - even from yesterday. What matters now is whether future discussions get derailed.
Set Bookmark
Tomalak
Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 2:29pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: Die Trying

I think we need an unwritten rule that if someone could read your whole post here and still not know you were discussing a Star Trek episode, or at least the wider Star Trek universe, then - whoever started it! - it's gone way off topic and it's time to bring it back on topic. There is nothing really wrong with arguing about Star Trek here. The problem is if the Star Trek discussion gets entirely lost.
Set Bookmark
Tomalak
Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 12:12pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: Die Trying

"Though I'd worry more about the possibility that the endless arguments will simply make the interesting stuff near-impossible to find."

True! But I think this is the key point: "There’s one person who is always involved in any argument on here. I suggest not replying more than once or twice (or none) and just dropping it when that person is clearly wanting to argue and planting obvious comments to stir the pot"

To the present and future reader who wants to avoid the thousands of words of not very important or relevant debate, just skip past the posts by Booming and replies to him.

But it does take two to tango. If some idiot accuses you of white supremacy for no reason, just ignore him rather than get in a 50 post debate, especially if you know he has done this at the drop of a hat to lots of others.

And as someone said last week, this probably wouldn't be happening if Discovery episodes weren't so forgettable. They leave discerning viewers with almost nothing to say, so even obvious trolls/fanatics like Booming suddenly seem worth the effort.
Set Bookmark
Tomalak
Sun, Nov 15, 2020, 8:04pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: Die Trying

I honestly don't think I could bear to watch this show but for the enjoyment of seeing discerning fans rip it apart on this web site. If Jammer falls under the proverbial bus, presumably ending the comments here, will stop watching. It actually had its moments in Season 1, and Lorca was for some of his time a fantastic Captain. I hated Season 2 and this season seems just as passable.
Set Bookmark
Tomalak
Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 5:49am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: Far From Home

@Jammer - well said.

@Slacker, I think you've responded to one of my points that wasn't aimed at you (I thought clearly, but probably not) about an anti-science ideological agenda, and ignored all the ones that were?

@Dave, I take the point but if you believe this why do you and others with similar views keep repeating the actress's name, as if it was her and not Tilly that Cody and I had commented on? By far the most likely way she would stumble across this is by googling her name.
Set Bookmark
Tomalak
Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:34am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: Far From Home

Good post, Jason. I genuinely want to understand if saying things like "whatever its cause, obesity is not healthy, end of story. Talk to a doctor. It isn't, sorry" is considered body-shaming or not by some of those who have used the term here?

"Body-shaming" seems to be used in a deliberately misleading way to conflate comments as reasonable as yours or mine in this thread right up to being grossly insulting to people who are struggling with their weight, something no one would reasonably support. It also seems to disguise a ferociously ideological anti-science agenda that says being fat is no problem for health and that being less attracted to fat people is a cultural construct caused by society rather than an innate preference driven by evolution that no amount of cultural change can alter. This kind of thinking is not just mistaken but intellectually disreputable.
Set Bookmark
Tomalak
Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 2:29am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: Far From Home

@Sen-Sors "I don't think pointing out an actor's weight gain on a TV show makes someone a bad person, and it's worth noting that Tomalek has commented on many other aspects of the show besides that topic. However, the defense of "genuinely curious of what you dislike about me saying this, I'm just pointing out the truth" comes off as a little disingenuous. A bit babe-in-the-woods, if you will. Surely we are all aware of the context of people's weight, self-esteem and the judgement society will often place upon you in relation to it."

My tone is more like scepticism that the person I am asking has a good reason for these taboos, if they really think about it. But obviously you can't engage with someone's reasoning until they explain it. Certainly if someone can provide a really good reason to avoid mentioning in passing a Star Trek character's weight gain, I am all ears. But the very fact that people's self esteem (whatever that is) is partly based on their looks and health does not preclude rational discussion or sound like a good reason to avoid talking about it on this kind of forum at all.
Yes, not every post here has been rational or mature, but that says more about the person making the post than the topic of nutrition and weight gain, which millions of people around the world discuss calmly and rationally every day. And let's be honest, all the genuinely insulting posts in this thread have been in one direction and have come from one person, Boomer, who clearly has a history of it on this web site on other topics. Suggesting that it's been "mutual bashing" (someone else's phrase not yours) or an outbreak of rage and fury is very unfair to everyone else here, on either side of the discussion.

@Cody B "If Tilly were chain smoking cigarettes the whole series and they were real it would be fine to not just mention it’s not healthy but it would be fine to say she’s stupid etc. Mention the obvious that a character has gained a lot of weight in two years and that’s just a no go zone."

Yes, this is one reason I ask for people to justify their distaste and anger at this discussion topic. Not only are there some unargued premises at work here that at very least need articulating, but there also seem to be some very obvious double standards and inconsistencies at work.

I wonder if sexism is at work here too, given apparently we had a discussion about Riker's weight gain. Did that meet with the same opposition and anger or are people applying one rule for male characters (and, I suppose the actors who play them) and another for women? Similarly, in this very thread, when Tilly's weight was mentioned Boomer fired back with male Star Trek characters who were overweight, before later deciding that even mentioning such things causes anorexia and makes the person who says it a douchebag and all manner of other childish insults.

@SlackerInc A few thoughts. I agree studies showing how much adopted children are like their biological and unlike their adoptive parents are hugely important in their implications. But I am unsure how much you can go from "at a statistical level, genetics explains a huge % of variation in a trait [like obesity] across a large range of people" to "at an individual level, genetics is by far the main driver of whether someone is obese/some other trait". I don't fully understand why this is an error myself, but this is something scientists often clarify as it's misunderstood a lot. Peter G has sort of explained why.

You say your personal experience is that exercise and a healthy diet don't help you shift weight. All I can say is that I have found exactly the opposite many times in my life. When I exercise and eat right, it makes a massive difference. When I don't, it makes a massive difference in the other direction. Like you, I have read the type of studies you cite but I can't say I am convinced that they merit media headlines like "diets don't work". Whenever I've looked at studies downplaying exercise, for example, they actually seem to show the limited impact of exceedingly modest amounts of exercise, which is no doubt true. But journalists then hype these studies as "exercise can't help you lose weight". It's the difference between saying saving and investing tiny amounts of money a year won't make you rich and saying no amount of saving and investment can ever make you rich.

Your first quote fits the genre: it seems to be a sensationalist way of saying that there are no short-term diets that will overcome years of subsequent bad eating habits. Who would disagree with such a modest claim? But show me the bodies of two people, one with years or decades of a healthy diet and regular exercise and the other with neither of those things and I am confident I'll be able to tell the difference way better than you'd be able to predict by chance. I am confident that you could too.
Set Bookmark
Tomalak
Tue, Oct 27, 2020, 3:15pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: Far From Home

Great post, Peter G. It's sad that it even needs saying.
Set Bookmark
Tomalak
Tue, Oct 27, 2020, 8:11am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: Far From Home

It's the reality of being fat that causes the problems, not randoms on the internet pointing it out in a matter of act way. As you said yourself, it's vanishingly unlikely the actress is even reading this stuff so I can't even see the point in worrying about it.
Set Bookmark
Tomalak
Tue, Oct 27, 2020, 4:44am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: Far From Home

Yes, my understanding is body shaming doesn't usually literally refer to making people ashamed of their body. It's more like an all purpose term for anyone who thinks a person can become healthier or more attractive by losing weight/can become less healthy and less attractive by gaining weight. It's an ideological belief that flies in the face of reality.
Set Bookmark
Tomalak
Tue, Oct 27, 2020, 3:54am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: Far From Home

I like Tilly and Detmer.

SlackerInc, I don't know what you mean by body-shaming, really, or how that's different from simply noting someone is overweight or has gained weight, which is all I am conscious of doing? Even in the very unlikely event that the actress read this I wouldn't feel I'd said anything insulting. I suppose she might have been unaware of how obvious her rapid weight gain is to others, in which case I'd say bringing it home to her in a matter of fact, non-insulting way is probably helpful. It also helps her friends and family avoid an awkward conversation. More likely of course she won't read a word of this.

I don't think anyone should feel shame for their size unless it really is driven by greed and laziness, which is rare. Far more common is that people have busy lives that preclude regular exercise and they receive lots of contradictory dietary advice and struggle to differentiate the good from the bad. But I *do* think that being fat or obese makes someone objectively less attractive, and does risk their health - if that's what people mean by body shaming, and they still think it's a bad thing, then I think they're denying both common sense and science (not just nutrition but evolutionary psychology and medicine too) in favour of ideological fantasies.
Next ►Page 1 of 4
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2021 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. Terms of use.