1

(1 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

In 2013, I was working on Freedom/Hate, which was a whole future universe, with an alternate history that was filled with complicated characters and in-world politics. That series was not following the path that I originally planned, and was becoming something new that I was trying very hard to keep a handle on. At the same time, I was working on writing another book (which I still haven't released, but hope to soon, when I have time to edit it). So quite simply, I had to put my own original work ahead of group fanfic. As it was, my head was about to explode.


But another reason is, The X-Files. We all have ideas for how Sliders should be remade at some point, and we could all probably create a version of the show that would be interesting in our own ways. However, a series needs one driving voice and a bunch of other people falling in line to make that voice as good as it can be. I'm not sure that all of our ideas worked well together as one single voice. I really don't remember much about the ideas that I had for Sliders, but if they were political, I can see frustration being an issue for everyone involved.

2

(197 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

That's fair enough. But I wonder what your wife would think of the show upon a second viewing (which may never happen). When you finish the series and then go back to the plane crash and the smoke monster, it all makes a different type of sense. And when you see how the weird island stuff relates to the character stuff, it comes together a bit more (at least for me).

It is interesting to hear how the show plays for someone who isn't into sci-fi/fantasy and who isn't caught up in the pop culture frenzy that surrounded the show (and wanted it to be something that it was never going to be). She has no choice but to let it be what it is, without writing online messages to the creators to try and change the show. That is cool. It is a more pure form of viewing.

I'm currently watching Rectify on Netflix (assuming that I keep Netflix. I have to look into this kiddie porn story a bit more). I knew little about tye show going in. No cast interviews or spoilers. No writer or cast tweets. It just is what it is. Like reading a book that's already been written and published and you just have to take it for what it is, rather than what you want it to be. It's cool.

3

(912 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Tell you what... I'll give you tips on building the kid cages and you can tell me the best method of ripping an unborn baby's limbs off and sucking it's brain out. Because that's the side you're on. Literally worse than Hitler, by the way. Just sayin'.

4

(912 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I don't think we need disclaimers to say that the views expressed by us represent our own views. That's how the brain generally works. smile


Okay, here's a new one for all of you liberal types. What do you do when a Mexican presidential candidate declares it a human right to cross into the US and claim it for their home? This is the case with Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who declared that he will make this a priority once he wins (if he wins). http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/eleccione … -migrantes

So we have a potential leader of a neighboring country openly stating that they will not respect our border (which they never really have) and will not only encourage, but aid those who want to violate our border.


This isn't an illegal immigration question. This is a diplomatic question. How do we address a Mexican government that openly defies our border and our nation? It seems far fetched (and kinda adorable in a way) for this to become an actual issue but we've had issues with Mexico for a long time now, with their helicopters firing our Border Patrol within our border ( http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2014/06/27 … er-agents/ ), or their military crossing our border and drawing weapons on our Border Patrol ( http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-bor … story.html ) so let's say that things escalate to the point where their leader declares that they will openly defy our border as policy.

What is your response to that? Is there a difference between Americans fighting for open borders, and other nations pushing at our borders? Or do you view those as the same thing?

5

(912 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Before I get into replies, I will say that rather than one big issue, this conversation really breaks down into different issues:

1. What do we do about the flow of illegal immigrants that continue to come into our country?

2. What do we do about those illegal immigrants who are already here?

3. What do we do about the children who had no say in the matter?

4. What do we do about the people who had no choice but to be brought here illegally, but have grown up here and know no other life?

All valid questions. Hopefully we can work on resolving these issues as a nation once the fake outrage over the photogenic children has passed.


Grizzlor:

The entire Trump/Miller/Kelly/Sessions approach is heavy handed and flat out un-American verging on heinous.

In what way?

Was it also heinous when Obama did it?

If so, why didn't you care then?



1.  The current system has been broken for decades.  Trump administration is now deporting people who have been here for decades.  Some are even DOCTORS.  These are people who are contributing to society, but have no good way to rectify their situation.  Right wing Republicans have refused EVERY attempt at remedies for the immigration system, because solving this problem would take away their dog whistle.

Even when the the Dreamer option was on the table, many of these people chose to remain undocumented. So, I don't necessarily buy the idea that they're trapped, with no good way to remedy the situation.

However, this is one of the problems that I listed above, and it needs to be addressed. I was never moved to another country as a child, but I did move from one state/culture to another state/culture and I definitely have no desire to be shipped back to my native state. Fine place to visit, but... no.

We do need a solution to this, but I honestly don't think that the politicians want to "solve" this issue any more than they want to "solve" healthcare or gun violence. These issues are their bread and butter, so it works out better for them if people are mad and fighting with each other.

What solution can there be? I don't know. It probably wouldn't work out 100% for either side. Even if we gave those people who really did grow up here (not those who made the trip on their own as teenagers) a chance to stay and become citizens, there would be a cost to them. The parents/relatives who brought them here illegally would have to face the consequences of their actions, and that would probably mean being shipped back to their native country. We would also have to define a clear cutoff point for this solution, because we'd be inviting more illegal aliens to try the same thing forever if we didn't.

But yeah. It's a discussion that needs to be had, and it needs to be had rationally.


2.  Family separation is 100% the cause of Trump's team's zero tolerance policy, begun only months ago.  Rather than simply deport the families, they have sought to PUNISH them.  Repeat, PUNISH them.  Again, this is draconian and unnecessary.

You're attributing a motive here, and you need to understand that the image that you're paining comes from your own head and not reality. Donald Trump isn't sitting in the Oval Office, laughing maniacally and getting off to the thought of suffering children. Real life is really never that cartoonish... or... it's rarely that cartoonish.

The fact is, if an American citizen committed a federal crime and was arrested, they would be separated from their children. We don't lock children up for the crimes of their parents. However, in the case of illegal immigrants, that situation is made more difficult by the fact that the kids coming over have nowhere to go once their parents are arrested.

Trump signed an executive order, to end the separation of families. He did exactly what was being asked of him. Yet this action is still being waved around as proof of how evil he is. This is an example of how fake the outrage really is. If Obama put an end to abortion when he was President, pro-lifers would have been dancing in the streets. That's normally what happens when you achieve a goal that you really care about. But the little kids were never the goal here, so there is no celebration.


But you know, gotta keep the base of racist crazies happy.


You have the potential to be better than this comment.



3.  The incarceration is seemingly undefined, as there is a major lack of immigration attorneys and judges.  Another remedy that Trump could fix, but HIRING more of them.  He has steadfastly refused.


One of the many problems that have to be addressed in a system that no politician has felt a need to fix for decades.


And so here we are, a President who despises poor immigrants,


(the ones that he doesn't marry)


the ones who come and do work we don't want to do.


Wait. Americans don't want to be doctors?

The fact is, that the "they do the work that we don't want to do" line is a slogan, not a fact. What it really translates into is that the people who hire them want to hire people who will work for less than minimum wage, who won't expect benefits, and who will be less likely to report abusive working environments.

This is relevant to the conversation that we're having about the migrant children, because some of the people doing the work that we don't want to do are actually children, who are brought here and forced into labor by people who pretend to be their loving parents.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 … ckers.html

And the "work that we don't want to do" issue also includes handing our children over to child molesters.



The one's who often flee peril, only to find more of it here.

The world sucks. In Canada or the UK, you can be jailed and fined for saying the wrong thing, all because they don't actually have freedom of speech. In many cases, we do what we can to help the people from places where they face true systemic oppression and violence. However, even in those cases, there is a proper channel to go through.

He wants merit based...  Okay, so on the application for visa, should we simply be asking how good you are at cleaning plates, picking apples, mowing lawns, or painting houses?

It's a valid question, to ask what they will bring to the table and how they will contribute to our nation. We're not a homeless shelter (though we have many of those, and even many in other countries,  because we're a nation that gives back). Other countries do the same thing. Why is this only a problem when it's the US, and when the president has an R next to his name?

I live in an area with lots of immigrants.

I live in an area that used to be Mexico!

He's complicit with a Republican party that  has no real interest in fixing the system, because it would take away a major issue they need to scream about to get people to vote for them.  Because beyond that, their platform is decidedly anti-working class.


First of all, if you can show me the numbers on how the working class is suffering under Trump, I'm all ears.

Second, if you can tell me what the democrat president or congress did to fix the system, I'm all ears. In fact, when Nancy Pelosi toured one of the facilities housing migrant children back in 2014, she urged people not to politicize those kids. (she also raised the good point about many of the kids coming over with health issues that pose a threat to others)

So again I ask the very simple question: if this situation is such an outrage and such a crime against humanity, why didn't any of you give a f--- four years ago?






pilight:

"Open Borders" doesn't mean abandoning all border policy.  It means we don't require visas.  Show your Mexican driver's license for an instant background check and you can enter.  The same thing we do for people coming from Canada, or Western Europe, or Japan, or Australia, or any of our other allied nations.

Not exactly. They don't just show up with their driver's licence and get into the country. In order to enter the US, visitors with a foreign passport need to obtain a visa. There are a lot of different types of visas, so it's pretty specific and the government wants to know what they're doing here.

You are correct that we do have a special arrangement with some countries where citizens can get a visa waiver. However, they do still need to apply for that waiver and get approved. Which I guess is different than getting a visa, but it's not exactly showing up with a driver's license and getting in.

Why isn't Mexico a part of this program? Don't know. Could be because they have a corrupt government, or all of the violence and abuse that people talk about when discussing reasons for people to come to the US illegally.

That said, Mexicans can still obtain a visa and visit the country.



There's no evidence to suggest more people would try to come if we made entry visa-less.  The people who want to come are coming anyway.

The same could be said for most laws and regulations, I suspect. Would more people commit murder if it weren't illegal? Would more people shoplift? Do people not do those things because they respect the law or fear punishment, or because they're just good people?

Food for thought. I'll skip the experimentation process though.



People are sneaking over because we've made it too difficult and expensive to come legally.  We created the problem with laws that only apply to one ethnic group of people.

In what way does it only apply to one ethnic group?


My brother has a friend who is Canadian. Despite living in different countries, they're not too far from each other, so when she was leaving her country to go overseas for a few months, she was going to store some stuff at his house and get a new place to live when she returned.

She was turned away at the border, because it looked like the was planning to move here.

On a more "facts and numbers" level, in July of 2017, the AP released an article all about the panic now felt by Europeans who were in the US illegally. While they'd been skating by for years, the crackdown on illegal immigrants was being felt in their circles.

http://fox2now.com/2017/07/11/us-deport … scal-year/

So rest assured, Trump's evil extends to everyone. The numbers of deported europeans is still lower than those who come over our southern border, naturally. But they do exist.



There are plenty of people here now who don't respect our nation or our laws or our citizens.  Look how many we have proudly carrying a flag that represented an outright rebellion against the United States.

Are you suggesting that Trump deport everyone who doesn't seem American enough, even if they're citizens?!

But seriously, actual citizens are a problem that we have to deal with. There are plenty of bad ones, but at least they're our problem to deal with. We probably don't need to borrow any more from our neighbors.



It's not our responsibility?  Tell Jeff Sessions to put away the Bible he's never read, because the Parable of the Faithful Servant says just the opposite.  It says to whom much is given, much is required.  President Bush used that quote in his 2007 State of the Union.  It's easy to say screw those poor Hispanic people running away from violence, I got mine.  But it's not a Christian sentiment and until very recently it wasn't an American sentiment.

 

I'm not debating religion. I'm debating politics.

There are plenty of situations whereby you would not be so quick to apply that philosophy. It's great to feed the hungry, but do you want the hungry to break into your home and take what they want? I don't think so.

Charity and theft are not the same thing. It's not our duty as Christians to ignore laws.



We didn't turn away the Jews escaping Germany during the depression.  What makes things so different now when we have the "greatest economy in the history of America"?


Are you seriously asking what the difference is between Jews escaping Nazi Germany and Mexicans sneaking into our country? Do you seriously have no concept of "hard life" versus "genocide"?

Anyone is free to apply for asylum. There are a number of places where they can do this in Mexico and other countries, but asylum is granted for very specific reasons. If they go through the process formally and legally, I don't think anyone has a real problem with them. If they come into our country, demanding that they have the right to take what's not theirs to take, people tend to have a problem.


And to answer your question about the economy of America... that economy will collapse if we let in anyone and everyone who wants to come into the country. No nation should do that!

6

(912 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

America is still a relatively young country, so it's easy to go back not-too-far and point out how things used to be as an example of the way things could be. However, the world has changed a lot sine the 1920's, the 1960's, and even the 1980's. Saying that everyone should be allowed into the country is like saying that Google should have to hire everyone who wants a job there. It would be chaos. It would destroy the economy.

Do you honestly, truly believe that we should just abandon all border policy? We should have absolutely no system for checking who comes into the country? Everyone should just come as they please? I'd say "Come and go", but let's face it... not many people are looking to rush into Mexico.

I'm all for legal immigration. I don't know that any significant number of people are opposed to it. But I absolutely do not believe that we can let everyone in, especially when they've proven that they're more than willing to ignore our laws whenever they don't feel like following them. Especially when they march through my area, waving a Mexican flag and insisting that they have a right to take what isn't theirs. In the old days, that was just called "invasion".



Larger population = more people rushing the border and sneaking over. This requires a different approach to patrolling that border. We've tried catch and release on the Mexican border. It's resulted in illegals not showing up for their court dates and disappearing into the country. Sorry, but I'd rather ship them home and let in the people who respect our nation, our laws, and our citizens enough to enter the country in the proper way. And this goes for anyone who enters our country illegally. Mexican, Canadian, or whatever. I don't care. People work their asses off, spending years and a lot of money to enter this country the right way. Why should other people get to just cut in line and take something that they didn't earn?

And if they're coming to the US to escape MS-13, I'm very sorry, but we have a problem with MS-13 as well, so maybe they should look somewhere else. It's not our responsibility to take in every sad story. It's one of the sad, but true things about life. People want to ignore the hard parts of life because it makes them feel icky, but sometimes there's no fun answer. It's unrealistic to suggest that the United States could, in this day and age, swing our gates wide open without doing incredible amounts of damage, to our healthcare system, to our education system, to our economy, to our national security... There is no area in which this would be beneficial to the American people. And sorry if it sounds cold, but the first priority of the American government should be the American people. Just like the first priority of the Canadian government should be the Canadian people. Just like with every other country in the world.

Great. Supergirl tackling a vast Russian conspiracy. Isn't that concept sooooo 2017?

I shall continue to pass on this show.

8

(912 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Agreed. We should process them and ship them home ASAP. Which is what usually happens, the first time. It's only after repeated crossings that they get more severely punished. However, when a child is involved, the issue becomes more complicated. Is the adult that they're with really their parent? That's assuming that they are travelling with an adult at all. Most of the minors being detained are not with an adult, which means that we have nobody to place them with. Even if they are the parent, are they abusive in some way? Believe it or not, children are often used as tools for crossing the border.

After all of that's done, they're all still going to need to be held someplace until they can be shipped home, or face whatever punishment they are going to face for repeated crossings, smuggling, etc. So, do we house children with adults in jails? That's not something that we'd ever even consider in a normal prison, so why would we consider it in this case?


There are many reasons why the southern border is patrolled differently than the northern border. We've discussed population numbers, the cultures that they're trying to get away from, criminal interests... The Canadian border simply isn't the same as the Mexican border, and I think it's absurd when celebrities tweet about how racist it is to treat them differently.

I also think that some of those outraged celebrities have been showing their true colors and proving my point recently. Peter Fonda calling for Barron Trump to be kidnapped and raped shows how much BS he is spewing when he talks about caring about children. No sane, rational person has that thought about a child. Ever. And they certainly wouldn't think of it if they really cared about kids. I think that abortion is murder, but you'd never see me talking about doing anything to anyone's child in revenge. It's disgusting.


The press and various people on social media have turned this into another blind-outrage issue, in order to keep people from actually discussing the issues at hand and resolving the problem. Resolving the problem does nothing to help the cause of the people who are generating this story (and they are, because as I've said before, this isn't breaking news. It's repurposed news).
We've all seen hundreds of people talking about how outrageous this is, and how wrong this is. Celebrities are telling their followers to stop following them if they don't agree. "Journalists" are comparing the situation to Nazi concentration camps (which I find disgusting on so many levels).

What isn't happening in all of this is simple conversation. We have issues: Illegal immigration, involving minors. What do we do with these minors? What do we do with the illegal immigrants?

Of course, the solution that the media is pushing people toward is just to let them all go. They're for open borders, which is insane. America cannot have open borders. Yet the politicians and the media will tell you that these people need asylum (for which there are many places in Mexico and other countries where they can go to apply, with their children) and if we don't let 100% of them in, we're monsters.

I don't see that as a viable solution, for many reasons. This is the United States. If we open our borders, we will have literally billions of people pouring in from all over the world. The United States will collapse, without question.


At the same time, I'm not a fan of kids suffering. I don't want them abused or raped, which happens often in the business of bringing kids into the country illegally. I want a good solution to this. So, what is it?


Addressing issues like MS-13 would be entirely different conversations. Let's do what the White Stripes tell us to to, and take all of our problems and break them apart. If we can agree that we have problems on the border and will illegal immigration, maybe we can start to discuss how to approach that problem. Where is that conversation in all of this outrage over the issue that people supposedly care so much about? If people cared, they'd have actual thoughts on the subject.

9

(912 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

The flow across the Canadian border is slower because there are many, many more people south of the US than north of it.  Mexico alone as almost four times Canada's population and a substantial percentage of the people trying to cross into the US come from further down in Central and South America.

True, population is an issue. But as I stated earlier, culture is another major issue. Mexico, and other countries beyond our southern border, are not as developed as the US or Canada (I'm not sure that developed is the word that I'm looking for, but I'll go with it). They have more motivation to leave their homes and try to come to America. Even those of us who oppose illegal immigration acknowledge and understand their desire to leave that life behind. Unfortunately, we can't take everyone in the world who wants to come to America for a better life. We take who we can.


Unaccompanied minors are a red herring.  According to the Chief of the Border Patrol, 0.02% of them are suspected or confirmed to have ties to gangs (meaning 99.8% are not).


I'm lost. When did we start talking about MS-13 in regards to the unaccompanied minors? The comment that I made was was a large number of the under-aged illegal immigrants who are being detained are unaccompanied minors. This means that the facilities for minors have to exist, because we can't just let them go because they're minors. They broke the law. How is that a red herring? I think that bringing MS-13 into this conversation is a red herring, because that is a whole separate issue. Nobody stated that all illegal immigrants were gang members.


MS-13 is also a red herring.  Jeff Sessions says they have 10,000 members in the US, which is supposedly a large increase.  In 2006, when nobody was talking about illegal immigration or this gang, they had....10,000 members in the US

Sessions says 10k is an increase: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4666617/sessions-ms-13

2006 FBI estimates MS-13 at 10,000 US members https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/ … rrus041906


Again, I'm not sure why we're talking about MS-13 here. It's a very violent gang, and it is absolutely a concern. But it's not what we're talking about here.



Crime is a red herring.  Crime rates are lower along the border.

https://www.newamerica.org/weekly/112/c … he-border/


Okay. I don't really have time to research crime statistics, so sure. Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with our conversation. Illegal immigration is a crime. 100% of illegal immigrants are criminals. This is why they're being detained. The question is, what do we do when they bring their children with them? It's against the law to house children with parents who are in jail (obviously), so this isn't exactly specific to illegal immigrants.


And really, nothing we do is going to stop trafficking as long as we allow the cartels to infiltrate the CBP

"what good are more boots on the ground if the men and women wearing them also work for the cartels? What benefit is an 18-foot wall when criminals can bribe their way through the gate?"

https://www.texasobserver.org/homeland- … er-patrol/


This conversation has gotten really random.

I am opposed to US agents working with cartels... even if crime on the border is down. I'm also opposed to the US government helping cartels traffic guns. But again, that's a different topic.

10

(231 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

By the time TNG came along, some of TOS technology already was already becoming a reality and seemed dated for a show set so far in the future. People shrugged it off because TOS was an old show, and TNG presented a more modern look at what the "future" looked like.

Now, TNG-era technology is a reality. I'm using it to type this comment right now. Yet Star Trek keeps going back to pre-TOS, trying to make that era fit into our current vision of the future, and it doesn't work. It destroys the universe created for the franchise. It makes it feel weird to watch the new shows. It doesn't play along with the rules that we all agreed to play by, with a wink and a shrug, back in the 80's.

They're creating a new franchise, calling it Star Trek, and demanding that we ignore the fact that it's not Star Trek.


So yeah, I agree. That was me saying that I agree in as few words as I can possibly muster while avoiding work.

11

(912 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions, nobody said it was a good situation. Nobody said that they're happy about it. It's a heartbreaking, horrible thing. So... what is the solution? The parents of these children are violating the law, so what do we do with them? This is the conversation that needs to be had, but it's not happening.

I'm actually really interested in knowing what the other side thinks should happen. What is the solution? What isn't Trump doing? Because I'm totally open to ideas, as long as they are realistic.


Oddly enough, Trump's wall may be the best solution. Stop the flow of illegal immigrants, which will result in less detainment, which will result in less children being separated from their families. Finally, we can put an end to Obama's policy of separating children from their families (for the record, I know that it's not Obama's policy, but since the media is so determined to keep referring to it as Trump's policy, I'm going to go ahead and be just as honest about it as they are)



pilight, the policies for the US/Canada border aren't quite the same as the US/Mexico border, because the situations are very different. The US does patrol the northern border, we do stop illegal crossings, smuggling, etc. However, the flow of illegal immigrants from Canada is much slower because Canada is a more advanced country, compared to Mexico. The incentive to cross illegally is smaller. The trafficking situation is different. The smuggling situation is different.

Culturally, Mexico is nowhere near being on the level of the US or Canada. This is why so many people want to leave that country, and why so many people are arguing for the borders to be opened to anyone who wants to come in (because they're fleeing their horrible homeland). The same things that make many more people want to cross the US/Mexico border illegally are the reasons why we need stronger security along that border.

So yes, there are stronger measures on the southern border. However, that's because the problem along the southern border is much greater than at the northern border. The northern border is still patrolled, and border policy is still strongly enforced, especially since 9/11. Nobody seems to care that northern border policies are enforced though.




TemporalFlux, the media tears have been pretty funny. Considering that this story was out years ago, and not one of these journalists cared Pre-Trump, everyone has to know that it's all fake. It's like watching "Chicago" at this point.

12

(912 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Really? Everything I've read says that you need to cross with proper documentation, at a proper crossing point (or risk being stopped). But I've never tried it, so I don't know how well they patrol their border. I certainly wouldn't expect them to leave their border wide open or allow anyone to enter without proper documentation.


I'm not sure what you mean by "new, more draconian approach". The policy of separating families isn't new with this administration. Obama definitely did it. I think Bush did before that. And when you think about it, it makes sense. If adults are being detained/prosecuted for violating the law, do you want little kids being detained in facilities with adult prisoners? We wouldn't do that with American citizens.

And a lot of the kids that are being held in the facilities that we're seeing all over the media are unaccompanied minors. There's nobody to release them to until someone shows up for them. We certainly can't just shoo them out the door and wish them luck on the streets.

Then there are the kids who are travelling with adults who aren't related to them. Obviously, we're not going to let them take the kids.


The media is making a big thing out of "separating families", and calling this Trump's policy despite the fact that it's been happening for a long time. The logical conversation isn't taking place, as people conflate all of these separate issues into one big headline. And there is a remarkable lack of better ideas, aside from "Let everyone into the country!" which is just silly and unrealistic. We have an immigration policy which allows for many, many people from all over the world to come into our country legally. Why is it suddenly considered racist for America (and apparently only America) to enforce immigration policies? And why is it only considered racist in regards to people coming from south of the border? There are plenty of Europeans who have to go through the proper channels to be allowed into the country, and many get sent home once their visas expire. I had a friend whose visa expired and she went home, despite wanting to stay in the country. It was a shame, but it happens.

13

(912 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Slider_Quinn21, sorry that I seemed to ignore your post earlier. I didn't even see it until now. Weird. But I agree. There is a temptation to attribute motives to anyone who doesn't agree with you, rather than listen to what they actually say. Most people aren't out to be eeeeeevil and most people don't want kids to suffer. Listening to both sides of an issue should be common sense, but it's not anymore. And I think that this is largely because the fad outrage is specifically designed to keep people angry and not talking. Because when people are talking, they stop seeing each other as the enemy. The comment that you linked to is a perfect example of the campaign to keep people divided. During the election, public figures were encouraging people to disown their families if they voted the wrong way. It was insane!



ireactions, I will agree that you're crazy. However, I would argue that the reason that I seem crazy to you is the fact that the version of me that lives in your head is kinda crazy. However, please try to remember that the me in your head is not actually me. I never supported Richard Spencer. I don't know that I've ever even had an opinion on Kellyanne Conway, much less been a fan. I have never supported shooting black kids. I have never supported racism. The fact that you think I support blinding children is appalling.

Again, these are words from inside your head that you're attributing to me. These things do not actually represent me or my thoughts.



pilight, agreed! And until recently, there was a really strong effort to put an end to human trafficking. Now people want to give kids to whoever happens to show up asking for them.

Border/immigration issues are not simple. This is why every country has a process that people need to go through in order to enter a country, or live in a country. I can't just walk into Canada (which is why I didn't go to Canada while I was up north) and nobody argues that I should be allowed to. I just think that it's dangerous and foolish to expect our country to simply open the borders wide and let everyone in. It's just unrealistic. And specifically when it comes to children crossing the border, we have to take into account unaccompanied minors, minors who are travelling with people who aren't parents or relatives, and children who really are coming over with their parents. But again, we can't just let everyone through without the proper processing, so what are we supposed to do? We can't keep children with adults who are caught crossing the border. That is just a recipe for bad.

It's a messed up situation. It's a long conversation. It's not just one issue, it's many issues. And yet I'm apparently the bad guy who likes blinding kids and killing black people because I'm not willing to go along with the blind outrage of the week.


Sigh. smile

14

(912 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions, please stop saying that I believe things that I don't believe. Please stop claiming that I say things that I don't say. Please stop speaking for me in general. And when I do speak (or type), please pay attention to what I say, because the version of me that lives in reality is a lot less scary/crazy than the version of me that lives in your head.


What I said was that I'm not buying the current outrage, while at the same time pointing out that there is a very real, serious issue to discuss here. I also pointed out why I don't buy the outrage: The policies and articles pre-date Trump, yet people only care now because it fits their narrative. If people actually cared about this, and if it was as huge of bombshell as people are pretending it is, someone would have cared when the matter was first brought up. Also, people wouldn't be pinning the blame solely on Trump while excusing previous presidents.

If people cared about the subject, they would learn about the subject. They are not. They are outraged because someone blew their dog whistle, and all of the good little puppies know that they're supposed to bark really loud when that whistle is blown.



(The views expressed by me above absolutely represent the entirely of the Sliders fan community, at least to the extent that ireactions' words represent me)

15

(912 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

True. More than once, in fact.

But I'm talking more in terms of the larger culture. Right now, people are outraged over migrant children, for example. It's not a new subject, but people are upset now because--quite honestly--they love the imagery of Trump putting people in "camps" because it fits the "literally Hitler" narrative and this is the best they could do. The articles are years old. Why did nobody care when Obama was in office? Because Obama was scandal free.

And while there is a whole, very large, complicated conversation to be had on the topic, most people aren't interested in that conversation, because they just want to talk about how Trump is literally Hitler.


In a couple of weeks, they'll move on to the next subject. Because people don't understand how little the actual subject of the outrage has to do with anything. It's about keeping people in a constant state of outrage, because it is politically beneficial. I love the debates and conversations, but I would get frigging exhausted if I had to maintain the level of blind outrage that a lot of people seem to be capable of maintaining these days. They keep the real conversation from taking place.

16

(912 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Anyone else getting super tired of fad outrage? Y'know, where everyone gets really, really fired up about some issue that they've done zero research on, just because they read a meme about it or saw an Oprah tweet, and logic or reason have absolutely no place in the conversation, because if you don't agree with their outrage, you are *literally* a Nazi?

How can people not recognize when they're being manipulated? It happens constantly, so people should learn the signs.

I was really hoping that Ralph would go away. It seems like they're continuing down the wrong path here.

18

(231 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I really don't see a scenario where the show can be salvaged, so I'm not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, it's great news that people responsible for season 1 are gone. On the other hand, the foundation is rotten. I thought Berman drove Star Trek into the ground, but the modern incarnations have been made with so little respect or love for the Star Trek universe that it's almost painful to watch.

The movies are wacky fun and are entertaining enough, but they still don't register as Star Trek in my head.

19

(788 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Wasn't this confirmed just after the first move came out?

Either way, I'm intrigued by the whole setup for the new movie. Glad that they didn't jump to the present, but I still feel like they could have kept Steve alive and allowed Diana to have a life with him, rather than kill him off.

Of all the DCEU movies, Wonder Woman gets the most praise, but I think it's the most unfocused and flawed of the bunch. It's my least favorite of the franchise, but I'm still looking forward to seeing the sequel.

20

(197 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Sorry. Been on a trip for two weeks and I'm still trying to get back into the swing of things...

Lost -

I think that's one of the big questions. Desmond's vision didn't turn out the way he saw it, so we're left to wonder if he lied to Charlie, or something changed. There's also the possibility that, even with the visions, the future is unknowable. Maybe he just saw one possible outcome and there really is no way to see the future. He put his faith in those visions, just like he put his faith in the button. Doing so had positive and negative results in both situations.

It's a really strange, but interesting, plot point.



Fringe -

I think that there was probably more story originally planned for John, but the show went in another direction and it became more important to resolve his arc and move on, rather than leave anything dangling. The show really didn't come into itself until later in season 1.

21

(788 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I don't think it is really the fault of either studio or the actor. The person directing those shots should have made adjustments for the situation. If it's raining, you adjust. If the sun is shining into the camera, you adjust. If you can't get your actor back at all, you adjust. The director has to make a million adjustments as he goes along, which is why a good director is a good leader who can make those changes.

This was Whedon, guys. He is stubborn and didn't roll with the punches at all. Honestly, they probably would have been better off letting the DP direct the reshoots (since this person would have worked closely with Snyder on designing the look of the movie), but they brought someone in who was supposed to alter the bones of the movie, yet wasn't up for the task. That part is Warner's fault.

I still like the movie. The mustache doesn't really bother me too much. But still, if it's an issue, it is Whedon who should carry that blame.

22

(788 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Suicide Squad 2 is supposed to start filming within the next year, I think. I think that's further along than it seems. These movies just don't have a ton of talk around them. The average person probably doesn't even know that Shazam is coming (and I do believe that it is part of the DCEU, but I could be wrong). It is a very different way of going about it, since we know every Marvel movie that will be released ten years in advance, but it's probably smarter. The DCEU won't get good press, so why give people that much longer to write articles about how doomed they are?

23

(788 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I don't think that there will be two Joker movies. I think WB/DC just develops ideas to see what works, and scraps what doesn't. This is smart. I think it's a better plan than randomly picking characters and setting a schedule, and releasing a movie regardless of whether it's ready or not. But the media, and therefore the audience, doesn't seem to get this approach.

I was never a huge fan of this Wally, obviously. I wish the actor well, but I think it'd be cool if they introduced the other Wally West now.

That makes sense.

26

(788 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I don't know that Cavill is really to blame. He probably signed onto the movie and had it on his schedule for after Justice League before any sort of hair/facial hair requirements were decided upon for the movie. He was probably aware that there would be JL reshoots, because that would happen even with Snyder. It's just a convergence of events at this point. Paramount isn't going to weaken their position for Warner Bros., and Warner Bros. is going to want to try to make their position as strong as possible too. Cavill was stuck in the middle.

I know it's pretty obvious, coming from me, but I think the blame goes to Whedon for refusing to think the problem through properly. As I said, the same scene (the cell phone footage was really the only one that I remember) could be accomplished in a number of ways. Hell, they could just make it look low-res/blocky and say it was a poor internet connection. But Whedon chose to do a high-res, full screen, straight-on closeup of Cavill's face, despite the obvious problem. And I think that shows weakness as a director, as well as possibly some of the passive aggressive attitude that we've seen from Whedon in regards to his work on the movie.

Since the shows did such similar things this season, it probably would have been cool if they'd actually played with that angle. They could have contrasted how Barry handles that situation vs. Oliver, and how their teams function without them. They could have even made a vague reference to the Thinker being Diaz's key to gaining as much power as he did (because Diaz honestly didn't seem that capable of doing it on his own). They wouldn't necessarily need to make the seasons of both shows into one big crossover, but having them ignore the fact that they were basically ripping each other off made it seem like the whole Arrowverse behind the scenes machinery doesn't work well with each other. There should be someone who at least knows the basic ideas for the big stories and could say "They're already doing that over on The Flash", so Arrow doesn't just copy and paste story elements.


With Tom Cavanaugh... I don't know his podcast. I can't listen or watch Michael Ian Black because he is such a troll. Not even just an internet troll. He's like a troll of all existence. So I don't know how Tom is on that podcast. What I think happened is that The Flash got a lot of criticism last season because people thought that it was too dark (something that I don't agree with), so the writers tried to swing the other way and introduce goofy, comedic elements to this past season.  The result was a mess all around.

I actually liked HR. I know that he was more like Tom, but I also think that he added a different type of intelligence to the team, which was interesting to see. The way they did that showed that the concept of various versions of that character could be interesting, because they're all different but have the same ability to be great. All of the versions of the character from different worlds that they showed this season were just Tom doing his take on movie/tv characters. It gave us no information about the characters and it wasn't interesting at all. I think the writers wanted to be funny, do people would stop complaining about the show being dark, and they thought that the way to do that would be to use the comedic talent that they see on set. But they did this with no consideration for the universe within the show, the characters, or the fact that they're not comedy writers and couldn't pull off this sort of wacky nonsense.

28

(788 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

No. Paramount specifically denied the request the have Cavill shave the mustache, because of the MI character. It was all them.

Any time you do a movie, they have to design the character. A lot of the time, it ends up just looking like the actor, but they probably didn't want tall, young, handsome Cavill looking too pretty next to Tom Cruise, so they needed to give him a facial oddity of some sort, while still making him appealing to the audience. Actually, that might have been in Cruise's contract.

Regardless, I watched Justice League again at home (same night as Ragnarok, actually) and the mustache honestly doesn't bother me as much as it does some people. I know it's there, just because I know it's there. And there were ways to make that less obvious (for example, having that Superman cell phone footage shown on a TV or computer screen, from a bit of a distance and maybe a slight angle), but it doesn't ruin the movie for me.

29

(181 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah, the alternate history doesn't really hold up as a version of the story that we know. Without Sam and Dean, how did Lucifer go free? How did Michael and Lucifer face off? Why wouldn't Charlie immediately get killed? The list goes on.

Probably best to not think about it. smile

30

(181 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Should I take offense at that comment?

I just think that Chuck managed to remain enjoyable despite their limitations!

31

(181 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah, I don't get a lot of the decisions that went into the finale. I could do without bringing over the doubles of people that we know. It doesn't feel like Bobby, so I don't see the purpose in bringing him back to the show as anything more than a quick nod. Having him on the show for keeps will feel weird, because it's Jim Beaver, but not really Bobby. And the longer they keep him around, the more questions will pop up about how the whole alternate history thing works on the show.

32

(197 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I am currently on a trip, and as I drove northward, I passed the Mystery Machine, and then the Weinermobile. Eventful ride. I eventually drove through Sioux Falls, SD and the Supernatural fan in me geeked out just a little bit. smile

The Lethal Weapon drama had been fascinating to watch. The studio totally made the wrong call on that one.

Yeah, the part with the speed force writing and Nora was interesting. I hope they have a solid plan for that.

As for Ralph... I'm just upset that he came back. He is super annoying. I imagine that he only has his powers now, if they keep him around at all. If he is on the show with all of those powers, he will outshine Barry, and that can't happen.

Okay, they just had no idea how to resolve this Thinker story, did they? The finale was a mish-mash of ideas that never amounted to a plot. Then we had the team hug Marlize and send her on her way, and it wasn't even a clever prank where she goes outside and is immediately surrounded by police and taken to jail. They actually let her go!

The scenes with Wally were better than what we got of Sara on Arrow, but I felt like his conversation with Joe was the continuation of a conversation that I never saw the first half of. Did Joe see him off when he joined the Legends?

Toxic femininity!

Yeah, Barbara is a bit much. I think it doesn't bother me as much as it could, just because she's usually surrounded by characters that contrast that personality a lot. On her own, she is very annoying, but as part of the overall picture, she doesn't bother me too much.

It could be cool. This would be a great time to really change things up and go in a completely different direction with the series.

But Oliver will be back to his normal life long before the crossover, and no massive cast changes have been announced, so... We'll see. My hopes aren't high.

How do they make this show? AoS looks like it was filmed in someone's basement, in the 1990's, while Gotham looks like a movie. It has spectacular visuals of the city. I'm sure a lot of it is shot against a green screen, but you'd never know it. The visuals in the finale were excellent. The characters are great. The general vibe of the show is perfect.

I am impressed with this series. The stories are great, and exactly what they should be for this series. There's not a whole lot for me to discuss about the actual storylines, because they speak for themselves. But as I was watching the finale, I was struck by how beautifully this world has been brought to life on the show.

And at the end, when they showed us glimpses of the city falling into chaos and we saw glimpses of Man-Bat, and Morgaine le Fey with Mordred (I'm assuming that's who they were), it just felt natural. That says a lot.

39

(181 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Supernatural finale:

I'm torn on this. There are elements that I was really drawn into, and elements that I thought were kinda cringy. I think that can be said for this entire season's arc.

The alternate world arc wasn't great overall. I like that the angels over there weren't the stupid corporate angels that we've seen over the last however many years. They were dangerous, and didn't spend scene after scene just talking about how powerful they were. However, as a whole, I'm just not sure about the other universe. Using it was a way to undo deaths without undoing deaths felt gimmicky to me. In a whole entire other world, they just happen to bump into a bunch of their old dead friends (and not even the ones that I'd be willing to have back even if the method of doing it was kinda weak). And Bobby/Mary? No.

It wasn't horrible. It just didn't feel like Supernatural to me.

However, we got Jack this year. I didn't like how he came about last year, and I didn't like bringing Lucifer back at all, but I did end up liking Jack a lot, which surprised me. Not only did I like him as a character, and how he works with all of the other characters, but I liked this underlying question of whether or not he was born to be bad. There was always this threat that he was too powerful and could do horrible things, even if he didn't meant to. Watching that tension fill the room in each scene, even if it wasn't being directly addressed, was fascinating.

There was real tension with Lucifer and Michael, even if I didn't love them being there at all. Lucifer trying to lure Jack to the dark side, using his same old Lucifer methods, was interesting. And when he finally turned on Jack, it wasn't really surprising, but it was emotionally charged, just because we care for Jack at this point. I do like that they took Jack's power away. Even having Castiel around is too much of a crutch for the series, so if Jack is to stay, he needs to be a person, not a super powerful being.

And then Dean saying yes to Michael after all these years... it was cool. However, it led to some of the more horrifically corny visuals to ever grace this show. The flying battle was bad. It was like watching a B-Movie from the 80's, to the point where I kinda think that they might have been riffing that style on purpose (especially with the freeze-frame at the end of the episode).

I'm sure I'm supposed to be wondering how they will get Dean out of this, but I was just left screaming at my TV "Boot him! Why are you whining about having a deal instead of saying no?!"

But whatevs.

So yeah... I don't know. The episode wasn't horrible. The whole arc wasn't horrible. It just didn't feel like it was taking place on the right show for me.


And lest I forget, I am going to ding Supernatural for doing something that I've bashed the Arrowverse for. No special treatment.

TRUMP IS NOT PRESIDENT IN THE SUPERNATURAL UNIVERSE!!!!!!!!! Watch your own damn show, people!!! Jack is genetically the damn president's son! Yes, it was a stupid idea, but you did it anyway. Now you don't get to make Trump jokes!

Arrow finale:

What they hell were they thinking? This episode was like a how-to guide for horrible plotting. I don't even know where to begin.


I guess I'll start with Diaz. They spent the entire season spinning their wheels with this guy. They had a hundred different chances to kill him off and be done with him, but they didn't, just because it wasn't the end of the season yet. He's not particularly intimidating or capable. He's not a mastermind. He's just a guy who people refuse to put down. So we finally get to the finale, and what happens? Oliver refuses to put him down! He literally stands there like an idiot, doing nothing while Diaz goes on about how he's not going to be stopped. The one time Oliver does shoot him, he doesn't even deliver a fatal wound! And then Black Siren throws him into a frigging river?! I sat through this entire mess of a season to get to THIS?!?!

In the shuffle, Quentin is wounded. We all knew that it was coming, because it was announced weeks ago that Paul Blackthorne was leaving. I read that it was the producers who decided to off the character, so you'd expect them to have a hell of a reason for it. You'd expect it to be super powerful. Except, it wasn't. They managed to get this mortally wounded man to the hospital, only to have him sit around for a few hours, waiting to have the super urgent emergency surgery that will save his life. Except it doesn't, because SHOCKER, you should probably have emergency surgery right away. The death was useless, and resulted in another hospital bed goodbye, like Laurel's, which gives the writers a chance to write a bunch of speeches, but ultimately drags out the moment that we all know is coming, to the point where the actual death has no emotional punch. Quentin should have died back in the villain lair, resulting in Black Siren going all out to help the good guys.

Sara was brought back. Why? I have no idea. She didn't even share a scene with Quentin! And since Legends will be back in the fall instead of midseason, it wasn't even a setup for Sara to take over for Oliver (which would have been awesome. I still say that she belongs on Arrow, not Legends). He coming back meant nothing. She should have been the one facing off against evil Laurel all year, not Dinah. And when they do finally meet... nothing.

How the f**k does Felicity track down a pacemaker? This is as bad as the time she controlled construction equipment remotely, when none of it would have any sort of remote control functions.

Oliver going and making peace with all of the newbies was stupid. The show has refused to acknowledge the massive violations of trust and common decency by these people, and they act like it was all Oliver going crazy. Sadly, none of them died or left town, so we'll probably be stuck with them for another season.

Oliver went to prison. Is he going to see the "Barry Allen was here" thing on his cell wall? Because Barry Allen was in that plotline half a season ago. Hell, the prison even looks the same. And while I think that the storyline is probably better suited to Arrow (assuming that they can really dig into it), it's just stupid that so much of this season has been spent sharing plotlines between the two shows. It's absurd.


Not one element of the finale was fulfilling in any way. Not one thing felt earned. Not one thing felt natural. This episode should have been episode 10 of the season, not the finale. I can't believe we're still stuck with Diaz.


I'm glad that we will have a new showrunner next year, however, I'm not sure of the choice of new showrunners. Looking at her history, there's a lot of rom-com type stuff. That is not the energy that Arrow needs. I hope that the new showrunner can bring a tough, hard-hitting, toxically masculine vibe to this prison arc.


Crappy finale for a weak season.

41

(94 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Another interesting article about Allison, with comments from people who actually knew her:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/f … er-1112107

42

(912 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

All true.

In some old school debating situations, they'd force people to change their perspective by having them argue for the side that they don't agree with. I try to do this sometimes. Every so often, I'll even help out the person that I'm arguing with, because they're not making the best argument for their side. It's an interesting exercise, because we don't usually force ourselves to answer the hardest questions about what we believe.

43

(912 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

That's true. I think that the media obviously does treat the two parties differently. Whereas the people who said crazy things about Obama were painted as conspiracy theorist, anything said about Trump is regarded as legitimate news. For example, the birthers. Yeah, I never expected to find out that Obama was born in another country and couldn't be President, but there were legitimate questions to ask about why he wasn't required to show his birth certificate when it was requested (proving eligibility is something that even McCain had to deal with) and why he spent millions of dollars specifically to avoid showing it.

Most likely, it was because it made his detractors look insane, and that worked in his favor.

On Twitter, Erica Durance made a post about the whole "animals" thing. After is was proven to be fake news , she acknowledged that, but pivoted to say more bad things about Trump. So while the facts of the situation were tossed, "points" were still added to the "anti-Trump pile". Does that make sense?
And while this isn't significant on it's own, that pile of hollow hatred keeps growing with more and more instances where facts are thrown away while emotions are retained. I think that contributes to the overall toxic political climate in the media and on social media, whereas a more balanced disagreement/dislike would be more realistic and more productive.


And I've definitely done stuff like this in the past, calling Hillary a psychopath, or joking about "Pinky and McCain" back in the day. Hell, I make jokes about Trump too, because he makes me cringe all the time. But I do try to avoid getting so deep into irrational hatred that I can't find my way back to objective reality. A lot of the people I've seen online are way beyond the point of objective reality, and they react with pure hatred if you try to bring facts into the conversation.

But I guess the riots and lootings have died down, so... That's progress. smile

44

(912 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I somehow got lost in a Twitter black hole where people are so desperate to say hateful things about Trump that they're literally and not jokingly siding with and defending MS-13.

Like... I get it. People dislike Trump, and sometimes for legitimate reasons. But in the words of Kenny Rogers, "You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run."

This situation has led me to a question. It will probably sound like I'm mocking people, but I'm not. It's a serious question.

I've seen Trump comments either taken out of context, misquoted, or fabricated quite a bit since he took office. I'm sure that happens with all Presidents. But these comments are usually what I see people use when they really want to dig I to Trump and show how ugly he is as a person. So the question is, are people aware when they're doing this? Are they aware that what they're saying isn't true or honest, and they just use it because it best expresses how they feel? Or do they genuinely now know that these comments are dishonest?

To be clear, I remember rolling my eyes at some Obama insults back in the day, so it isn't really about which side we're on. And I don't think that Trump is beyond being criticized legitimately, so this isn't about *all* critical comments. But there are some that are clearly dishonest, yet get used nonetheless. The latest being his calling MS-13 members animals (which is an insult to animals) and the media spinning it to sound like he was referring to all illegal immigrants. Even after it's been debunked, I see people using it.

I was hoping that Batman would be an Earth-2 character. It just feels like a good fit to me. But I guess that probably won't happen. Since they are using Batwoman, I assume they will come from Kara's world, because of its toxic femininity. (That was a joke. Relax)

I doubt Batman will happen, and I'm okay with that. They cast Superman way too young, and they'd probably do the same with Batman. Arrow already swims in Batman-inspired waters pretty often, so it'd probably be weird to have Batman appear anyway. Same with Oracle.

46

(181 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

That's new! smile

I'm curious to see where they go with the show. I'm not totally into having the other-worlders settling in the main universe. However, the angels from that world have been handled better than the prime angels lately. With no king of Hell, and Heaven being closed off, the show might finally lose some of their crutches.

I watched the first episode of Black Lightning, but it didn't impress me. I may revisit it over the summer, but I haven't decided yet. From what I saw, they left wiggle room that could allow the show to fit into tye Arrowverse if they wanted, but I didn't see any solid link.


Also in the news, this year's crossover will feature Gotham City and Batwoman. And everyone is already expecting her to hook up with Sara, because Sara is just a joke of a character at this point.

48

(304 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

The dumb part is, Carter's unwillingness to let go of the arc that should have ended back in the mid-90's is what is ultimately killing the series/franchise as a whole. Life continues, but chapters in our lives do come to an end.

49

(304 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

...because it is a story.

There's a difference between a "life goes on" ending and a "we have no idea what we're doing" ending. With his logic, why didn't the series start when Mulder was conceived?

50

(304 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I think something is wrong with Chris Carter. He was never the best writer on the show, but some of the decisions that went into this final season (especially the finale) were beyond just bad writing. There is no person in their right mind who would have written the Scully pregnancy reveal and thought that it was a perfectly legitimate plot twist... for so many reasons that it's hard to list them all.