Doctor Who

I mean, if you want an answer more specific than 'Youtube comments are frequently awful' you're going to have to more specific about what they're falsely claiming happened.

I wonder how much of it is twisting events just so they can scream "GIRL DOCTOR BAD!!!!!"

Well we did have a sword fight in Christmas Invasion also, which helped define Ten as "no second chances" man...years before they modified that slightly to "man who never would" man

The thing is that I never read the 'man who never would' scene as sincere on his part- we've seen multiple times that he absolutely would under certain circumstances, at that moment what the situation called for was to give them a more unambiguous example of pacifism than what he actually believes in.

But that's probably opening a can of worms I'd rather stay closed.

...

...oh...I shouldn't...it always goes bad when we discuss him...

....damn. I gotta.

Now, we agree that he has shown he would, but I like to think that, while you're right that he was trying to be what was needed for that situation, that it's also the point that the dude he was seemingly threatening was beaten and no longer a threat.

Every time he'd shown that he would, it was due to the enemy refusing any other solution and pushing forward because they thought he couldn't stop him. There were still able to cause harm, so the Doctor put a stop to them, even if he didn't like doing so.

But in this case, the fight was already one. What he was saying was I would never harm someone who was completely defenceless and no longer an active threat.

....That's the nice interpretation. The other one is I'm a massive hypocrite who's full of shit.

As in the real interpretation.

I mean, the main point I'm driving at is that I don't see the two scenes as incompatible or evidence or a character shift, which both of our interpretation allow for.

But will our hate allow for it?

Will hate allow for it at all?

The answer is no.

Can we just table this discussion? Please? Because (and I know this may sound hypocritical here because I've been guilty of this myself,) this never ends well.

Fair enough.

...I wish things hadn't gotten that bad in regards to 10, but yeah, we'll end it here.

I am in complete agreement with .

I'm actually glad that Thirteen addresses this, since the Doctor's rules tend to change all the time:

I think that's hilarious, because 1) it's so true about the Doctor and 2) him shooting the Sniperbots didn't work at all, which she probably knew would happen.

I think partly it's tied into Ten's own neuroses — it's continued on with Twelfth, e.g., taking an immediate dislike to Danny because of him being a soldier, but it's something the RTD era played up. It's not just an aversion to killing, which the Doctor bends to quite often, but a disliking of guns, weaponry and total warfare from his own Time War trauma. It's similar to how Ninth does a lot of dodgy stuff in his series, but is ultimately unable to just pull the trigger and blow up the Daleks and an already-partly-destroyed Earth, even if it just means everyone is Dalek-ified — because it's too much like choosing to destroy wholesale Time Lords and Daleks both. Plus you get a few silly scenes like 'They can shoot me dead but the moral high ground is mine.'

I think the self-defense/beaten-foe reading is valid, but it's a point in Tenth's finale that, while he can't really claim much moral high ground from it, Tenth can't bring himself to just shoot the Master, even though it would, turns out, just reset everybody on Earth back to normal. 'It's not like I'm an innocent. I've taken lives. And I got worse, I got clever. Manipulated people into taking their own. [dramatic pause while Wilf continues to offer gun] I can't. I just can't.'

Edited by Lavaeolus on Jan 14th 2019 at 1:18:13 PM

So I found this comment on a review for "Resolution"

I think this guy has a point. People who were against 13 from the start are so stubborn that they kinda made up their mind beforehand. So they are not trying to enjoy the episodes, but looking for proof it's bad instead.

This results in Accentuate the Negative, mabye even only seeing the negative points, without being able to enjoy the good ones. Because let's be honest, it's not that previous seasons were flawless. I personally enjoyed most of Moffats writing, even if I have some big problems with it. Specifically the twists, sometimes they seem to be in there only for a twists sake and when you apply Fridge Logic, the story falls apart.

The refrigerator is the TARDIS's natural enemy.

🤣

I gotta admit, that took me a while.

Doctor Who is a show I adore, but even in the seasons that are the top of my charts I can find an issue. Like yes there are things in season 11 that have frustrated me but if you're going to be set against something you won't find anything good.

True. I swear there's at least 2 Youtubers i found who's sole purpose seems to be to denounce season 11 as SJW trash for reasons that are exaggerated or non existent. Like dude - Nerd something rather, just seems to love raging on about Season 11 and how the show is failing because apparently the rating are dropping HORRIBLY AND SJWS ARE KILLING THE SHOW. Also one time he want on a tangent about Gail Simone and fridging, of all things. "BECAUSE MEN DIE THAT WAY IN COMICS TOO YOU DUMB FEMINAZI"

The thing that really cheeses me off is that most of the shit he, and others who hate season 11 complain about have been present since the classic series; politics, feminism (like did they seriously watch ANYTHING with Sarah Jane?), general left-wingedness, historical episodes that actually educate you about shit.

The shear myopia of most of these complaints is baffling

Edited by Sisi on Jan 16th 2019 at 9:56:25 AM

A lot of "fans" don't appear to actually pay attention to the thing they like. You can see it in many, many fanbases. They get a concept in their heads and whenever the thing they like diverges just that tiny bit too much, they start realizing that the thing they *think* they like isn't actually what the real thing is like at all.

Like, there's people complaining about Star Trek "catering to the SJ Ws". Like...what? They appear to have missed a fundamental part of the franchise.

Yeah, I ignore completely anyone who uses the following words and/or phrases:

• SJW
• virtue signaling
• NPC (and not the video game characters)
• identity politics

Because usually they have no idea what the hell they are talking about.

Edited by alliterator on Jan 16th 2019 at 9:28:23 AM

And they ignore the fact that 13's gender is barely mentioned at all the ENTIRE season. Because somehow it's still pushing an agenda to have a female Doctor no matter what they actually do with her.

Or that apparently Yaz was just a diversity hire and not a "real" cop...I've heard that used as a serious argument about her character as a whole

Number of times they mention the Doctor's gender:

• Episode 1: "Why are you calling me madame?" "Because you're a woman?" "Oh, does it suit me?"
• Episode 2: "Come to Daddy...I mean, Mummy!"
• Episode 6: When she says that all her references to changing gender are just jokes, ha ha.
• Episode 8: The only episode where the Doctor being a woman is integral to the plot. "These are hard times for women! If we're not being drowned, we're being patronized to death!"

Aaaand that's it.

Edited by alliterator on Jan 16th 2019 at 9:38:16 AM

There's also Rosa, where the Doctor's response to being called ma'am is that she's still not used to that.

Lol. I meant that it's not huge deal that she's female now; like the bad guys aren't all making sexist comments about her boobs and shit.

Like the only time sexism made into the convo was that witch episode when the physic paper changed from Whitchmaster to Witchmaster's Assistant because James I/VI was a sexist knob.

That made me think about how bad it would be if say Whedon was in charge. I hate the "show villain is a bad guy by hurling misogyny at the female lead" cliché, it's lazy.

I kind of liked how they portrayed King James. Yeah, he was incredibly sexist and wrong about a lot, but he at least thought he was doing good. So like, he wasn't good to be around or a pleasant person, but he wasn't the villain. (Did make things much worse though)

I guess it's a nuance thing. Sexism is always bad (all the isms are), but it's important to portray them as not the be all end all of a person. Because if it gets through that a lot of racist and sexist acts are otherwise well-meaning people with some bad ingrained behaviours and not that it means the people are inherently evil monsters, that might help some people learn better.

(Historically, King James was pretty awful though, I definitely won't deny that)

Edited by Zendervai on Jan 16th 2019 at 10:47:24 AM