[ SECRET POST #2314 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2314 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________




















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 096 secrets from Secret Submission Post #331.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Have you read some of the more in-depth and analytical criticisms of his writing or the sexism in his writing? I'm not saying that you won't still like him afterwards - no writer is perfect and it's hard to find a single piece of fiction that isn't slightly problematic, since we live in a problematic society and writers reflect society - but it might make you see things you didn't notice before. Some of them are bullshit paranoia, but some are really quite good.

[(Anonymous)]

Can you recommend any analysis /analyst in particular? I'd like to broaden my perspective.

random links

[(Anonymous)]

http://stfu-moffat.tumblr.com/post/45692674719/evayna-submitted-to-stfu-moffat-just-found

http://orbitingasupernova.tumblr.com/post/23649154029/bisexuality-in-doctor-who-and-the-queerbaiting-antics

http://stfu-moffat.tumblr.com/post/30991164205/how-moffat-ruined-doctor-who-for-my-little-sister

http://www.overthinkingit.com/2010/07/12/fixing-doctor-who-season-five-edition/

http://www.geekquality.com/moffservations/

http://fauxkaren.tumblr.com/post/35646564215/ponds-departure

http://liz011.tumblr.com/post/33268167891/doctor-who-on-respecting-the-audience

http://squarise.com/2012/08/5-doctor-series-7/

http://fauxkaren.tumblr.com/post/32757116630/angels-take-manhattan-spoilers

http://fozmeadows.tumblr.com/post/30686644200/doctor-who-asylum-of-the-daleks

http://stfu-moffat.tumblr.com/post/27985244382/i-think-part-of-moffats-problem-is-that-he-does

http://fauxkaren.tumblr.com/post/30701844873/oodly-enough-le-claire-de-lune-nit-picking-an-issue

Re: random links

[(Anonymous)]

From most of those URLs you can pretty much see that they aren't going to be reasoned analysis, but blatant cherry picking to justify rants and personal dislikes.

You wouldn't trust a url which was http://www.how-jews-ruined-the-country-for-my-little-sister.com to be a fair and balanced investigation into Judaism after all.

Re: random links

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

Pretty much all arguments are cherry picked, though. That's their nature. If you want to "broaden your perspective" then you'll have to wade through a lot of arguments and decide which ones you agree with and which ones you don't.

Re: random links

[(Anonymous)]

da

I'm pretty psyched to see a domain name like "stfu-moffat" tho. Last time I was active on Tumblr, Moffat was a god among men and could do no wrong.

Re: random links

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT.

Whatever floats your boat. But if you're not reading criticisms depending on the url (or rather, the title of the post) then... yeah, you're never gonna find a reasoned analysis anywhere.

Re: random links

[(Anonymous)]

Well thought personal dislikes, tho.

[(Anonymous)]

Read a lot of SJW ranting which claims to be analysis. Every "analysis" is basically the same, starting from the position of assuming misogyny then cherry picking out of context quotes or making up allusions to justify the accusation.

Basically it is all bullshit. You could make the most ardent ally look bad with the same tactics.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt

No. Really, no, it is not "all bullshit". A lot of SJWs have a lot of very good valid points, they just undermine them because they just have to run it off a cliff and mix those good points with cherry-picking ranting and blow it all up into a bigger deal than it is. There's a lot of legit sexist shit in the stuff he writes. Starting with River Song's entire character arc, but not restricted to that. I'm not even sure I can cover all of it, since a lot of his sexism is due to his patterns.

[(Anonymous)]

Or you could be creating patterns to justify the starting position. I'd want something a bit more than patterns.

[(Anonymous)]

People with prejudice will see patterns that support their prejudice. Well known bit of human psychology. That is why you see a pattern of sexism in his work. It is because you want to.

[(Anonymous)]

Why the hell would you WANT to see sexism in his work? What?
Nope, pretty sure I actually wanted to continue loving my favourite show, actually.

[(Anonymous)]

And those who think he's an "ardent ally" have no predjudices whatever? Sure.