Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck

[Dragon Ball Fan]

why is the idea of it destroying the whole multiverse the point that crosses the line, though? that makes sense based on the original premise of the network.

Then that's a problem with the premise. It's too all-encompassing and it raises too many questions of the "someone will have already destroyed the universe with it if it covers every planet, every star, ever galaxy, every universe" variety.

Of course every sci-fi idea isn't going to stand up to detailed scrutiny - to be able to do that with, say, warp drive you'd have invented warp drive for real, but if the holes pop into my head instead of me working them out suspension of disbelief gets shattered at once. That's especially bad if you're still watching the episode (not that I've actually seen any ST:D episodes).

you could say the same thing about the Reality Bomb from Doctor Who but someone on TV Tropes pointed out that maybe there is a limit to the variations of events a given multiverse has or there is some kind of cosmic fail safe that makes it so this kind of disaster always is kept from happening in every timeline.

[Deledrius]

Doctor Who barely has continuity or any relation to reality when it comes to even basic physics, so that's not exactly a useful comparison. Star Trek may not be hard sci-fi, but more often than not it does pretend to be a realistic future.

[clearspira]

why is the idea of it destroying the whole multiverse the point that crosses the line, though? that makes sense based on the original premise of the network.

Then that's a problem with the premise. It's too all-encompassing and it raises too many questions of the "someone will have already destroyed the universe with it if it covers every planet, every star, ever galaxy, every universe" variety.

Of course every sci-fi idea isn't going to stand up to detailed scrutiny - to be able to do that with, say, warp drive you'd have invented warp drive for real, but if the holes pop into my head instead of me working them out suspension of disbelief gets shattered at once. That's especially bad if you're still watching the episode (not that I've actually seen any ST:D episodes).

you could say the same thing about the Reality Bomb from Doctor Who but someone on TV Tropes pointed out that maybe there is a limit to the variations of events a given multiverse has or there is some kind of cosmic fail safe that makes it so this kind of disaster always is kept from happening in every timeline.

My problem with the reality bomb is the idea that if the multiverse is every possible result of every possible decision made manifest, then wouldn't there be a universe where the Doctor loses and the reality bomb goes off? Why isn't everyone dead?

[clearspira]

I guess if we get back on topic, I do disagree with his ''French are cowards'' jokes. Does he (and anyone who likes to say this) not realise that if it wasn't for the French the chances of the colonies defeating the British Empire would have been dramatically more difficult? The only reason why they did not capitalise on the burning of the White House was the need to divert forces to fight off Napoleon AKA widely regarded as one of the greatest generals of all time and was very nearly the reason why the French not the British would have spread across the world.
The fact that the British decided that it was France and not the proto-US that was the threat really should say something about how cowardly the French are.

[Yukaphile]

I also disagree with the demonizing of Nazis as pure evil. The Soviets were just as bad. But then, that's what ethnic stereotypes have done to us after WWII. The French should have stood up to the cartoonishly evil Nazis. Of course, how our entertainment media have represented them has influenced our perceptions on that matter. I think the French fought as hard and long as they could, and surrender was a viable option. And not even they knew how bad Hitler would make it for ethnic populations living in France.

[Robovski]

I guess if we get back on topic, I do disagree with his ''French are cowards'' jokes. Does he (and anyone who likes to say this) not realise that if it wasn't for the French the chances of the colonies defeating the British Empire would have been dramatically more difficult? The only reason why they did not capitalise on the burning of the White House was the need to divert forces to fight off Napoleon AKA widely regarded as one of the greatest generals of all time and was very nearly the reason why the French not the British would have spread across the world.
The fact that the British decided that it was France and not the proto-US that was the threat really should say something about how cowardly the French are.

This is a touch more of ''what have you done for me lately'' and people's ability to forget (or be ignorant) of a more distant past combined with the very quotable Simpsons (''cheese eating surrender monkeys''). France didn't come off well after the second world war; especially after some of it's colonial disasters became the US's problems (eg Vietnam). It's not exactly fair IMO, and certainly the birth of the US owes a lot to France, and later the Louisiana Purchase, but a lot of that goodwill evaporated somewhere after 1936.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

about his Mask of the Phantasm review and his Better World review too.

I have softened on my opposition to it now but I still have problems with the no killing rule of superhero works. it works in alternate universe stories that either have a finite run or are one shot stories because they don't have the status quo of villains always breaking out of prison or coming back to life. I am even okay with it for most animated adaptations since because of sensory ship, the villains rarely ever kill anyone or ruin lives forever and lethal force isn't that needed. and the Joker was eventually killed in the DCAU anyway.

but there are several things wrong with the now killing rule in superhero stories in general. first, the writers want to show that the legal system and due process work but their unwillingness to keep the most popular villains, who are also the most vile and dangerous, locked up, shows that the system actually does not work

and I can't take stories that address this issue seriously because they always rely on logical fallacies, mostly the slippery slope. if once in a while, the point of the story was that killing would escalate things by making the villains push back harder or acknowledge there is such a thing as justified homicide, I might be okay with it.

and people may dismiss this because it came from Countdown to Final Crisis but on Earth-51 of the Post-Crisis/pre-Flashpoint DC Multiverse, Batman finally decided to kill all the supervillains in the world and that lead to that Earth becoming a utopia because the other heroes could now focus on ending war, poverty and famine.

[FaxModem1]

about his Mask of the Phantasm review and his Better World review too.

I have softened on my opposition to it now but I still have problems with the no killing rule of superhero works. it works in alternate universe stories that either have a finite run or are one shot stories because they don't have the status quo of villains always breaking out of prison or coming back to life. I am even okay with it for most animated adaptations since because of sensory ship, the villains rarely ever kill anyone or ruin lives forever and lethal force isn't that needed. and the Joker was eventually killed in the DCAU anyway.

but there are several things wrong with the now killing rule in superhero stories in general. first, the writers want to show that the legal system and due process work but their unwillingness to keep the most popular villains, who are also the most vile and dangerous, locked up, shows that the system actually does not work

and I can't take stories that address this issue seriously because they always rely on logical fallacies, mostly the slippery slope. if once in a while, the point of the story was that killing would escalate things by making the villains push back harder or acknowledge there is such a thing as justified homicide, I might be okay with it.

and people may dismiss this because it came from Countdown to Final Crisis but on Earth-51 of the Post-Crisis/pre-Flashpoint DC Multiverse, Batman finally decided to kill all the supervillains in the world and that lead to that Earth becoming a utopia because the other heroes could now focus on ending war, poverty and famine.

The thing is that they could already make the Earth a utopia, even with the villains around. People like Two-Face and Captain Cold are going to have problems hiring lackies in a Star Trek style Federation utopia with all their needs met and people are spending their days making art or other projects to feel useful.

[clearspira]

about his Mask of the Phantasm review and his Better World review too.

I have softened on my opposition to it now but I still have problems with the no killing rule of superhero works. it works in alternate universe stories that either have a finite run or are one shot stories because they don't have the status quo of villains always breaking out of prison or coming back to life. I am even okay with it for most animated adaptations since because of sensory ship, the villains rarely ever kill anyone or ruin lives forever and lethal force isn't that needed. and the Joker was eventually killed in the DCAU anyway.

but there are several things wrong with the now killing rule in superhero stories in general. first, the writers want to show that the legal system and due process work but their unwillingness to keep the most popular villains, who are also the most vile and dangerous, locked up, shows that the system actually does not work

and I can't take stories that address this issue seriously because they always rely on logical fallacies, mostly the slippery slope. if once in a while, the point of the story was that killing would escalate things by making the villains push back harder or acknowledge there is such a thing as justified homicide, I might be okay with it.

and people may dismiss this because it came from Countdown to Final Crisis but on Earth-51 of the Post-Crisis/pre-Flashpoint DC Multiverse, Batman finally decided to kill all the supervillains in the world and that lead to that Earth becoming a utopia because the other heroes could now focus on ending war, poverty and famine.

Just because something is a fallacy does not mean that it is untrue - that in itself is a fallacy. It has been proven on the testimonies of numerous soldiers throughout history that killing is something that gets easier the more you do it, and it has also been proven that murderers are emboldened if they get away with their first kill. If Batman puts a bullet in the Joker out of necessity, it is a slippery slope as to whether he'll do the same to the Riddler for convenience next time and that is a provable fact.

And I would argue that the prison system doesn't work in real life either considering that the rate of former prisoners that re-offend is huge. Why don't we just shoot them all? Its quicker, cheaper, convenient, and it'll feel good to the guy with the gun who gets to gun down all of these nasty people.
We don't do that however because it is important that we as the good guys actually prove that we are the good guys. You want to know a real slippery slope? When we as a society find ways to justify murder.

And yes, I am going to dismiss your last example because I cannot stand writers and fans who wank Batman to such extreme levels. Bat-God stories are boring as hell.

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

About the luddism in Insurrection- it's nice to have someone call out the insufferable Ba'ku, and it's pretty aggravating how the film automatically assumes that letting them run the entire briar patch is the only moral choice available. At the same time, I'm not sure the basic concept is quite as ridiculous as Chuck makes it sounds. The hippie variation can be pretty silly, but a lot of great writers and thinkers- ranging from famous monastics to Tolstoy to Tolkien- have given serious consideration to similar ideas about technology, industry, and how man relates to the inevitable march of progress.

I might be a little unfair here in assuming that Chuck was dismissing all those ideas rather than this one specific instance, but it just seemed a little overly dismissive.