9
SpoilerNew Doctor Who
Sooo... I've just watched the Doctor Who Christmas Special yesterday, and I'm not sure whether I like where the show is going or rather, where RTD is taking it.
That first special for the 60th anniversary? Downright terrible. Gender ideology plus a boring, rather predictable story, and don't get me started on the new take on the theme đ The second special felt like a run-off-the-mill space adventure but at least it was a bit of fun while I thought the third special was actually really good - Neil Patrick Harris was amazing and stole the show, hands down. Plus, I love UNIT and Kate Stewart.
BUT: I still don't see the point of bringing Tennant back. He's still one of my favourite Doctors, and I was very excited when Jodie Whittaker's Doctor regenerated into him. But after the three specials I just don't see the point, and my excitement wore off when I realised that 14 was really just 10 - not that I expected him to be that different, but still... it was kinda disappointing and seemed like such a waste.
I doubt that those three specials with their blatant fan service helped keep the rates from plummeting further like they were probably expected to. Mind you, I don't mind fan service, but in this case, it felt as if RTD was just checking boxes. Bring back 10? Check. Bring back his coolest companion? Check. Bring back her grandfather for ten seconds? Check. Solve the problem of her being killed by her memories? Check. And so on...
While I thought the idea of bi-generation was kinda funny, it immediately made me suspect that RTD did that in case they needed Tennant again to save the show. You know, like a backup. And I couldn't stand the ending he gave 10/14. Let him retire on Earth with his best friend while keeping a copy of the Tardis? I mean... really? đ That, too, felt like fan service for all those who still think that "I don't wanna go" is a heartbreaking last line for the Doctor to say before he regenerates (I still think it's terribly cheesy).
Now, the new Doctor... I'm not sure about him. He's so... cheerful. Like, over-the-top cheerful, and seeing the Doctor dance while wearing a kilt and an undershirt was very, very weird, not to mention the singing later on. That felt completely off, it was like watching a brand-new show. As if RTD was saying "Now we're doing a proper reboot and leave the rest behind us. Let the Doctor laugh and be merry for most of the episode, let him dance and sing, and while we're at it, give him tons of jewelry, nails with weird symbols on them and a new sonic screwdriver that looks like the thing you use on a Oujia board".
I'm not sure I like where he's taking the show. I have struggled with it in the past but have stuck with it nevertheless, even when things got bumpy. But this time I'm not sure. Maybe it will take a while to get used to the new Doctor - with Matt Smith, it took me two or three episodes until I warmed up to him.
I love this idea. I've been concerned that outsiders might be really turned off by the home page scroll. I'm not saying that mocking memes and outrage are not justified. Rather, I wonder if the public face of this site would serve our interests better if it were to reflect and highlight the reasons we are here and our best arguments and supporting facts. A Steel(wo)man circle would be great for doing that. So would grouping the circles on the front page with a small feed under each, so that visitors could easily navigate the broad variety of content. Maybe also some type of header with a brief, general statement of purpose.
I have a reservation about doing this publicly: as far as I can tell, they haven't had a new argument in forever, and I worry we would end up doing their work for them. They argue based on emotion, by repeating reasonable feminist arguments in scare quotes with fart noises, and by saying 'don't listen to that, it sounds sensible but it's a secret code from eeeevil people'. So I'm concerned we'd just be giving them a list of key phrases to tar.
We don't need to give them anything. Everything we say can and WILL be used against us in the court of woke. But the court of public opinion is what matters and they won't be doing that. The danger isn't in what we say, it's allowing them to define what we say for us.
Awesome idea! I'd go for this. We could also practice debating each other! For example, the OP makes a post she wants to learn to argue against, and can ask the commenters to play the role of TRAs arguing against it. It could help us learn what all the common arguments are and how to debate them.
I've never heard that term before, but that sounds like a great idea. I do think TransLogic sometimes posts some pretty fringe beliefs, or posts something that didn't get much engagement/agreement from TRAs. Arguing against the popular, reasonable-sounding claims seems more useful.
This sounds like a wise and compassionate suggestion that will promote intellectual rigour. I would appreciate this very much. I think that a steel woman circle would also be very beneficial not just to TRAs, but to consider other conservative, right-wing or other âanti-womanâ stances (such as on prostitution, pornography and other liberal feminist ideas) so that we can make a more cohesive argument for the liberation of women.
I think this makes sense. The purpose is not to debate TRAs anyway, because they're not really working on logic and rationality and just go pee po belly bum drawers when you get them against the wall. The point would be to generate the sharpest arguments for when you write to your representatives, craft your organisations positions, talk to your neighboursm, write a leaflet, and if you are called to represent the Terven viewpoint on the media.
Here in the UK we have WPUK and others writing serious policy documents and looking up and debating the laws, challenging policy creep through formal channels. That's how you win the argument, at the end of the day, not with memes and twitter pile-ons. The job is reversing institutional capture, and that involves approaching institutions in a manner that they will respect. That takes credibility and savoir-faire and strong, straightforward arguments.
I'd like to have a truly uncensored debate circle that wouldn't devolve into what the so-called free speech zones of the internet usually devolve into. Steelmanning is a great idea to avoid that. I don't believe in dangerous ideas or words, only dangerous people. So it'd be great to have a pro-feminist space where we could discuss everything openly. This can be our advantage, we can be the group of women that doesn't go out of it's way to attack and cancel wrongthinkers but instead is capable of discussing actual ideas without going after people. We don't need to silence anyone, we want reality to win, not some cult ideology.
I canât remember the name of it but there used to be a catalogue of all the arguments against evolution (generally that creationists would pose) with rebuttals attached. I want to develop something like that for transgenderism and gender identity extremism as a separate resource.
I have a different idea I'm about to post, and it's an old-fashioned "Debates" circle, or universal flair for this purpose. I think the problem I've seen with "steel manning" is that it always enters into absurd/unrealistic territory, because people are attempting to be as "fair" as possible, instead of just attempting to take on a position (which is what you do when you debate, and because you want to win a debate, you inherently make your case as strong as possible, instead of pursuing some vague idea of "steel man" arguments).
That is exactly the best way to hone and strengthen arguments - push them against the toughest shit. This is a good idea.