Season 2: why the wokeness?
Season 1 was fine. But season, they had to put some lesbian relationship in our faces, with the doctor and the drug lady
shareThe lesbian relationship was well known from S01. The woman was bisexual. She said that she had a girlfriend.
Is it inherently "woke" to just show lesbian people existing?
I don't know wtf the OP is going on about "wokeness" but there definitely seemed to be a weird agenda with excessive lesbianism. I started a post about this over a year ago about how even in the first season there was a weirdly high concentration of lesbianism for an other dimensional void town of "maybe" 20 people where it is established that it traps strangers there at random. You had the nurse chick who had a lesbian fiancé back in the real word, the hippie commune lady & her lesbian side girlfriend, & the bratty teenage daughter showing newfound lesbian tendencies towards the hippie lady. That's already 20 percent of the total population.
Then in Season 2, for the first time ever the town breaks its own rules & brings someone with a close connection to someone it had previously trapped there & can you guess who this person turns out to be? The nurse chick's lesbian fiancé of course! Great! The town apparently loves lesbian relationship drama. How about that. I'm surprised the pathetic friendzoned Asian "deputy" in love with the nurse didn't kill himself. The town aka the writers clearly had a specific agenda to pull such a contrived move.
Dude, we've been through this in the other thread where you called Donna a lesbian (despite there being no evidence of this).
And there's more than 20 people there. It's just we only focus on about 20 main and supporting characters.
I don't think there was even 20 named characters in the show but however you want to rationalize it, it's definitely a rather high concentration of female characters shown to have some degree of lesbian tendencies. Especially given the tiny population & small cast. Clearly the writers had an agenda which they are entitled to have but it's an agenda, nonetheless.
shareNo, there aren't. But you can clearly see there are more than 20 people there.
There's 1 lesbian woman (who could be bi too, who knows), and 2 bisexual woman there. And that bisexual woman is in a straight relationship. I don't recall if Fatima actually expressed any attraction to women. Julie making a pass at her doesn't mean she had any natural interest. And Fatima is in a relationship with a man anyway.
"some degree of lesbian tendencies"
As i said. "Female characters with some degree of lesbian tendencies" That applies to lesbians, bisexuals and whatever else. So there is no need to repeatedly point out the distinction as it is entirely irrelevant to the point being made, which I'm now reminded was your big focus in the previous discussion. In season 1 Fatima (the hippie lady) was clearly shown kissing a woman in a romantic/sexual way & essentially states that she's in an open relationship with her male partner after the teenage girl with the budding lesbian attraction towards her asked her about the kiss. So yeah everything is still applicable. The lesbian fiancé showing up in season 2 was just the most gratuitous example of an already established agenda with the frankly, rather unimaginative writers.
>The lesbian fiancé showing up in season 2 was just the most gratuitous example of an already established agenda with the frankly, rather unimaginative writers.
No, it just sounds like dime-a-dozen love triangle tropes more than being part of any "lesbian agenda". Especially as they depicted that as a troubled relationship with her drug addiction problems.
By S02 Fatima is completely with Ellis and Julie no longer pursues her or any women at all.
It's definitely more agenda than "dime-dozen love triangle" when it bends over backwards, breaking its own established rules to facilitate the contrived lesbian relationship drama & the lesbian fiancé being magicked to the town is about as contrived writing as it gets. Fatima (the hippie lady) not shown making out with her gf after season 1 is again quite irrelevant.
shareNo reason to believe this. What rules did it break? There are no rules to this world really. The show is very much "make shit up as we go along".
>Fatima (the hippie lady) not shown making out with her gf after season 1 is again quite irrelevant.
But her going directly into a heterosexual relationship arc with Ellis and pregnancy arc very much is.
Deary me you clutch your pearls way too hard.
"It's a fictional show so it internal consistency is irrelevant" is not a good arguement. It was firmly established in season 1 everyone in the town was trapped there at random, perhaps for years. The town randomly breaking this established precedent to bring in the lesbian fiancé is contrived writing. There's no getting around it.
You're basically repeating an irrelevant strawman in regard to Fatima. Her relationship with a man is irrelevant unless you believe that being in a committed relationship with a man suddenly discounts her established interest in women & open relationships. The point is that she was one of the several female characters curiously piling up in season 1 who were established to have some degree of lesbian tendencies in a rather small cast of characters.
>"It's a fictional show so it internal consistency is irrelevant" is not a good arguement.
That's not what I said. You can criticise it, but you claimed it has some internal consistency that bringing in Kristi's GF would somehow violate. There's no reason to believe this.
>It was firmly established in season 1 everyone in the town was trapped there at random, perhaps for years.
No, it was established that they believed it was random.
>You're basically repeating an irrelevant strawman in regard to Fatima. Her relationship with a man is irrelevant unless you believe that being in a committed relationship with a man discounts her established interest in women & open relationships.
If the show was interested in pushing lesbian propaganda, they would've not detoured her into making her storyline prominently about her and Ellis.
>The point is that she was one of the several female characters curiously piling up in season 1 who were established to have some degree of lesbian tendencies in a rather small cast.
So fucking what.
Notably there are no gay men in the series. Does that mean it's anti-gay men?
"That's not what I said. You can criticise it, but you claimed it has some internal consistency that bringing in Kristi's GF would somehow violate. There's no reason to believe this."
Bottom line is it was very contrived, lazy writing that of all people it would be the lesbian fiancé to break the precedent of strangers brought to the town entirely at random. And with everything else supports idea of clear agenda at play with the writers.
No, it was established that they believed it was random.
"If the show was interested in pushing lesbian propaganda, they would've not detoured her into making her storyline prominently about her and Ellis."
Says you. Perhaps the writers felt that establishing Fatima (and others) as lbgtq early on was enough & that the shoe-horned lesbian relationship drama in S2 would suffice as a main focus. So yeah, "There can't be any sort of agenda unless every female character is actively in a lesbian relationship" is not a good argument.
"So fucking what.
Notably there are no gay men in the series. Does that mean it's anti-gay men?"
"So what" is that it's something very noticeable & that I found strange and worth pointing out. So effing what is it to you? The show seemingly having no gay men is statistically probable but again irrelevant to the point that the writers clearly seemed to have a peculiar interest in establishing the majority of the female characters as something other than straight.
>Bottom line is it was very contrived, lazy writing that of all people it would be the lesbian fiancé to break the precedent of strangers brought to the town entirely at random. And with everything else supports idea of clear agenda at play with the writers.
Break the towns assumption that such is how it works.
>Says you. Likely the writers felt that establishing Fatima (and others) as lbgtq early on was enough to be satisfied that the shoe-horned lesbian relationship drama in S2 would suffice. So yeah, "There can't be any sort of agenda unless every female character is actively in a lesbian relationship" is not a good argument.
Yes says me. Look who's typing? Me. What is it you think they were trying to do by showing that Fatima and Julie are bisexual? What is this big conspiracy you think they're trying to push?
>"So what" is that it's something very notable & that I found strange and worth pointing out. So effing what is it to you? The show seemingly having no gay men is statistically probable but again irrelevant to the point that the writers clearly seemed to have a peculiar interest in establishing the majority of the female characters as something other than straight.
Donna, Sara, Tabitha, Trudy, Tian are straight. Fatima, Julie and Marielle are bisexual.
It hardly takes a "big conspiracy". All it takes is merely one writer of influence with an agenda & no qualms about not bothering to hide it which seemed to be more or less the case here.
On the point about the majority of female characters being "not straight", you left out the lesbian fiancé & Fatima's girlfriend. Also two of your "straight" female examples are old ladies who I don't recall the subject of relationships ever coming up. Donna in particular was quite "ambiguous" from what I recall. Either way, that's majority "not straight" by season 2.
>It hardly takes a "big conspiracy". All it takes is merely one writer of influence with an agenda & no qualms about not bothering to hide it which seemed to be more or less the case here.
Agenda being what? "Lets write some lesbian characters"?
>On the point about the majority of female characters being "not straight", you left out the lesbian fiancé & Fatima's girlfriend.
Marielle is the Lesbian fiance. Fatima's girlfriend? You mean a supporting character. If we're gunna start including supporting characters then I can add all the other background women.
>Also two of your "straight" female examples are old ladies who I don't recall the subject of relationships ever coming up.
Tian is literally Kenny's mother. I assume Donna is the other old lady. You're just assuming she must be bisexual or lesbian because of her demeanor.
You got it. Pretty much the agenda of "let's arbitrarily make a point of making the majority of the female characters non straight because I wish that's how it was in real life & also because we can."
I forget all the names but you must have left out one half of the lesbian fiancé relationship in your examples. Donna is the old lady who was depicted quite "ambiguously" with no romantic relationship ever mentioned, yet you listed her in your examples of "straight" female characters for some reason.
>You got it. Pretty much the agenda of "let's arbitrarily make a point of making the majority of the female characters non straight because I wish that's how it was in real life & also because we can."
How in the fuck do you determine their motives just from that? They also casted no gay men so I guess they don't want any gay men in real life?
>I forget all the names but you must have left out one half of the lesbian fiancé relationship in your examples.
Dude, whoever Fatima was shacking up with in early S01 was a side character. If I mention them, I would be able to mention many other characters.
>Donna is the old lady who was depicted quite "ambiguously" with no romantic relationship ever mentioned, yet you listed her in your examples of "straight" female characters for some reason.
Sure. But there's also no reason to believe she's a lesbian. And I don't really regard her presentation as ambigious. Plenty of straight women like that.
Obviously i'm just a person on the internet using a degree of conjecture based on an observation. Again, the over-representation of non-straight women appear to have been the pet priority of the writer(s) over the representation of homosexual men. Are you literally going just keep asking the same questions? I didn't say Donna was a lesbian. The issue is that you labeled her straight when there was no evidence of that at least in S1.
shareSo by your logic we should also assume the writer/showrunner doesn't like gay men.
shareNo. As I said more than once, it just indicates the writer(s) personal priority being non-straight women.
shareExcept it focuses as much time on the Fatima-Ellis romance. And on the Jim-Tabitha marriage. And on the backstory of Boyd and his wife. And half of the lesbian relationship is a love-triangle that involves... Kenny, a dude.
shareYou are quite determined to miss the point repeatedly. The disproportionate number of non-straight female characters was the primary point.
shareJust a heads up Threadkiller. If you’re caught noticing the obvious wokification of modern entertainment the Skavau-bot gets activated and goes on a gaslighting mission to convince you there’s-nothing-to-see-here.
His basic bitch bag of rhetorical tricks include relentlessly asking stupid questions to make you run around finding evidence to prove the patently obvious until you get exhausted, and constant straw-manning of your position.
Just in case you were in danger of taking him seriously.
And you continue devoting your entire life to stalking me around on a messageboard. I also haven't asked him to find evidence at all. We've both seen this show, albeit I am not sure if he's seen S02.
shareI don't know what "wokification" is supposed to mean but as far as your general point, I'm definitely getting that impression here. I don't mind having a debate with someone with a different opinion, but I hate giving someone the benefit of the doubt, only for it to turn out that they're arguing in bad faith and just trying to waste your time.
shareI accept there are more lesbian characters in From than some other shows, and as proportion of the population. I don't accept that it shows any kind of agenda given how they're handled and how the show is generally.
shareHe preys on people who aren’t familiar with his dirty tricks and who are trying to argue in good faith.
His goal is to gaslight you into thinking woke isn’t a thing and needn’t be resisted, and that the ruling regime is legit. He’s an evil political fanatic pretending to be a film and TV enthusiast.
>He preys on people who aren’t familiar with his dirty tricks and who are trying to argue in good faith.
The "dirty tricks" that you are unable to ever explain.
>His goal is to gaslight you into thinking woke isn’t a thing and needn’t be resisted, and that the ruling regime is legit. He’s a political fanatic.
It's genuinely pathetic that you think like this. Politically radicalised by Disney and other mainstream entertainment has to be amongst the most pathetic, loser ways one can become a political extremist.
Not sure what the prominence, or lack of, or existence of 'woke' in media has to do with whatever this "ruling regime" is. But it's clear how you view the world: with me or against me. Anyone who disagrees with your presuppositions about the world in any sense is an enemy, and should be destroyed. They are, in your mind, fair game to be lied about. Anything can go. They are unpeople. This is cult mentality.
Your claims of "political fanaticism" are pure projection. You are so sure in your values that you believe the only way anyone can disagree with you is if they're paid off, or if they're being willfully deceptive to others. You genuinely don't believe you are wrong about anything.
Now *that* is narcissism at its highest order.
So what? By definition any show with a primary cast of 10 people casting just 1 lesbian or gay characters (or two given they usually cast two if they're going to cast one) is "disproportionate". It tells us nothing in isolation.
shareI see you're going to keep asking the same exact questions, including my favorite of "So what?" even after I give you definitive answers. Is it REALLY going over your head or is getting the last word that important to you? You seem to just enjoy getting people to go around in circles with you. Have at it then because this became quite repetitive a long time ago.
shareWell done, you've noticed there seem to be 3 non-straight main character women. I guess 4 if you include Julie, but a lot of teens can be like her (and it doesn't really come up again, and S02 suggests a potential romance with another character who appears in S02). You then seek to from there draw some conclusions about some agenda.
shareIt’s all show-feathers, Skavau is a fanatical wokist and you’ve challenged his ideology, so he’ll just keep on bombarding you with completely insincere questions to wear you out.
He wants it to look like you couldn’t answer his ‘Socratic questioning’ and gave up, when the truth is that it’s all a rhetorical trick to deconstruct your common-sense observations and opinions, and make it look like you ran away.
My recommendation is that you do what more and more people on this board are doing - ignore his obnoxious, phoney interrogations and just use him as a plaything - call out his BS and kick the shit out of him for fun.
>It’s all show-feathers, Skavau is a fanatical wokist and you’ve challenged his ideology, so he’ll just keep on bombarding you with completely insincere questions to wear you out.
By "fanatical wokeness" you mean not obsessed with crying about 'woke' in everything? Not seeing it in all the shadows?
You regard anyone who disagrees with your politics or social viewpoints as "woke". I've seen you hurl abuse at many people purely because they disagree with you. Like when I say you've got mental health problems, and a cult mindset - I mean it. You seriously act like a Scientologist, except it's based on the political divide (or your understanding of it).
>He wants it to look like you couldn’t answer his ‘Socratic questioning’ and gave up, when the truth is that it’s all a rhetorical trick to deconstruct your common-sense observations and opinions, and make it look like you ran away.
His "common sense observations" here are "there are some lesbian characters in this show". "This must be part of an agenda".
>My recommendation is that you do what more and more people on this board are doing - ignore his obnoxious, phoney interrogations and just use him as a plaything - call out his BS and just kick the shit out of him.
So you want and more people to behave like you, and spend their entire lives obsessing over the behaviour of someone on a message board who lives an ocean away from them?
And you think that's healthy?
"My recommendation is that you do what more and more people on this board are doing - ignore his obnoxious, phoney interrogations and just use him as a plaything - call out his BS and kick the shit out of him for fun."
In general, I'll probably just try avoiding people who argue in circles, in total bad faith, who are just trying to waste time. Apparently "running out the clock" when engaging in discourse is a win for some people
That’s fine, as long as you’re not feeding what is essentially a troll.
It’s commonly believed that he’s in fact a bot - notice how his replies come within seconds of you posting, and they’re always the same dull stream of Straw and Hatchling questions. No invention, no humour, no personality behind them.
If you see him predating on another unsuspecting good-faith user on this board then please warn them of his schtick before he wastes their time too.
>It’s commonly believed that he’s in fact a bot - notice how his replies come within seconds of you posting, and they’re always the same dull stream of Straw and Hatchling questions. No invention, no humour, no personality behind them.
They do not "always" come quickly. It's been hours. I am a very quick typer, and very quick at navigating the internet. That doesn't make me a bot.
>If you see him predating on another unsuspecting good-faith user on this board then please warn them of his schtick before he wastes their time too.
It really is genuinely your sole purpose in life to make everyone into little copies of yourself. People who do nothing but what you do. Genuinely pathetic.
"Bad faith = people who don't automatically just concur with all of my observations on everything" apparently.
share
(Rubbing my chin) ... Maybe the creator and writer of the show John Griffin has a thing for Lesbians!