Yellow Diamond

9 hours ago, Whompy Whomperson said:

>Simpsons Hit and Run

Now that's a meme I haven't seen in a long time...

Came for Anastasia Steele; stayed for Bob Ross.

4 hours ago, ultrairongorilla said:

As wonky as the first season is so far,  l like it. The atmosphere in these episodes seem more generally "chill", than what I'm used to watching from more modern adult cartoons. Also, it's so surreal to watch an adult cartoon with so very little swearing and toilet humor. I just can't believe parents considered this show offensive back then.

Ah, the 90s. When "eat my shorts" was considered offensive and edgy.

I think the general constraints worked to The Simpsons' benefit. Total creative freedom can be a curse: writers fall into poor habits because there's little need for cleverness. The unabashed vulgarity of South Park and, to a much more limited extent, Family Guy worked because those shows were grounded in shock humor. But The Simpsons thrived when dealing with down-to-earth life situations. Bart, for instance, was portrayed as a malcontent who was quite clever. He had poor influences (namely, Homer) and lacked the motivation to do the right thing. Later seasons turned him into an outright sociopath who got off on other people's agony and had no sense of shame. Many of the characters suffered from similar instances of Flanderization, unfortunately.

Season 1 is a bit surreal in retrospect, as the show was still finding its voice (in some cases, quite literally). Nevertheless, I really liked how grounded the earlier seasons were; nowadays, The Simpsons feels more like a cartoon trying to be hip rather than a surprisingly thoughtful sitcom.

With respect, I scanned your post but eventually stopped when I reread this point:

Quote

The theist is one who says, "I know there's a god, I know which one it is, I have a personal relationship with God, I know exactly who and what God is, I know His will and His commands, I have the authority to speak on His behalf as His representative, I know what foods you should and shouldn't eat, I know which days you shouldn't work on, I know how and when you should pray, I know exactly how much of your genitals should be cut off, I know who you should sleep with and in what position, and failure to comply with any of these conditions will result in an eternity in a lake of fire." 

This is a straw man. I hardly see this as the segue into logical, honest discussion. You have every right and privilege to voice your opposition to religious attitudes, but your reasoning comes across just about as dogmatic and rigid as the "theists" you argue against.

3 hours ago, ShadOBabe said:

So an “atheist” is someone that doesn’t believe in ANY god(s). A “theist” DOES believe in god(s), no matter which deity or deities those are. If you believe in God or any other gods, you’re not an atheist, you’re a theist.

An interesting historical tidbit: Romans often accused the early Christians of being atheists because they rejected the existence of the traditional gods in favor of one. Their standard for atheism, of course, was much different than ours.

Anyway, I rather think it's disingenuous to be a militant atheist. A militant anti-theist makes more sense, but atheism, strictly speaking, simply holds the divine does not exist. Actively promoting the values of non-belief comes across as nonsensical; it is hard for me to imagine someone asking with a straight face, "Would you care to take a moment to not believe in God?" Only when atheism is joined to another cause (e.g., Rationalism; Scientism) does it really make sense to extol the spread of atheism. It needs a positive outlet or justification.

Like JU88 said, thank you, Jeric, for sharing your and Jess's story. Clearly she's an irreplaceable part of your life. I never met her (not in person, anyway), so everything about her came through you and others. Troblems has mentioned to me more than once the impression she made. Jess must've had a way with people which can only be described as special.

I have no doubt you will continue honor her through raising your kids and just by being you. While you may claim not to be a diamond (and I dispute being one myself!), you're definitely a real gem.

As always, you'll be in my thoughts and prayers. But if you ever want to talk about anything, you know where to reach me.

As Hazard Time pointed out, sex and gender are two different things: sex is biological; gender is a social construct. It's a bit grating to see the Steven Universe wiki list the Gems as genderless when they are in fact sexless -- at least by default. They clearly identify with the feminine gender, likely due to using the Diamonds (the Gem matriarchs) as their archetypes. The show has made it clear that the Gems have a strict hierarchy indicative of a developed, if stifled, social system; therefore, however it came about, Gems -- apart from Steven -- consider themselves female, if only an a social sense.

Peridot describes Gems as primarily designed for conquest, it's true, but I wonder if she's vastly oversimplifying their overall "purpose". From her perspective at the time, certain Gems were tasked with particular roles without any possibility of change. If we assume the Gems initially developed organically and were not artificially created, then we can at least deduce that they naturally possess a high level of tolerance in exchange for specialization. Although both their survivability and specializations have resulted in the Gems creating an intergalactic empire, it isn't necessarily indicative why Gems may exist in the first place. It would be like studying human development backwards by beginning with modern human society: you might conclude humans developed in order to conquer, reproduce, and exploit resources -- not unlike the Gems. Analyzing their current state can't tell us everything about their origins.

In short, to claim it's illogical for the Gems to have social constructs like gender assumes a great deal about them when our information remains limited. It's even unclear if they've made contact with other intelligent beings (apart from humans) in the universe. As for why they appear so aesthetically human, it's worth keeping in mind that humanity may have derived much of its aesthetics (i.e., clothing and architecture) from contact with Gems, not the other way around. We tend to load the deck by using terms like "humanoid" to describe their appearance, despite the fact the Gems were presumably humanoid prior to coming to Earth.

If EqD wants to open a forum, more power to them. They're at liberty to run their site as they see fit. Their success, moreover, isn't mutually exclusive to ours, and vice versa.

Almost a neck to surpass Yellow Diamond.

Penny looks and sounds like she was an absolute sweetheart, in addition to being a beautiful cat. Having lived with cats, and having lost one especially close to my heart, I know how hard it can be to grapple with their passing. It's not just about losing a pet; it's like losing a friend and family member.

St. Bonaventure once remarked that we will encounter in Heaven all that we cherished in life. For whatever it may be worth, I hope Penny is one of those gifts.

When people prioritize their ideologies or ambitions above compassion, they cease to work toward justice and charity. Unfortunately, these voices often carry the day by drowning out dialogue. The internet is fertile ground for such activity.

All fandoms have dark corners, but the SU fandom's darker side is especially obnoxious. It hijacks discourse about social barriers and demeans the participants. Childish behavior nonetheless has very serious consequences. Again, the internet, having combined general anonymity with an instant response, provides the conditions for this perfect storm.

I don't envision what the ultimate solution may entail, but the first response should entail compassion. If nothing else, this is at the heart of Steven Universe: love isn't easy, and it can be exploited by manipulators, but entering the cycle of hatred is the road to self-destruction.

One of the lessons -- don't emulate another culture pro forma when you can authentically celebrate your own -- was fairly evident from the very beginning. I would've been more impressed if the Mane Six picked up on this note, and then delivered their own lesson by telling the Yaks that it isn't acceptable to hurt other people or ignore their sensibilities.

A weird episode that never quite got its footing. There were a few neat gags, but the whole story was formulaic. Moreover, the celebration of Pinkie Pie as an underappreciated hard worker was quite sudden and had very little bearing on the primary conflict. This felt like one of those episodes in which the writers slap two different stories together in lieu of having sufficient content for just one concept.

You're right: Gilda is not Morgan Everett.

I was reminded of the episode The Return of the Archons myself.

I haven't seen the episode personally, but the synopsis and critical reaction prompt me to agree.

Given how the MLP writers have proven themselves savvy geeks, I'm willing to bet at least a few of them were under direct influence from Star Trek. I can only hope Twilight will soon encounter godlike aliens before wrestling with a Gorn.

Personally, I got an enormous Star Trek vibe from the premiere. In particular, it reminded me of "Patterns of Force" (an admittedly loopy episode where Kirk and Spock end up on a planet that has adopted Nazism, only to join an underground resistance movement and get captured), "Space Seed" (Starlight, like Khan, is ruthless and utterly convinced of her own role as an enlightened despot), and "Balance of Terror" (where the Romulans are introduced under heavy allegories to the Cold War). Like a good Star Trek episode, "The Cutie Map" touched upon philosophical and political themes whist retaining the personal charm of the main cast.

The episode probably featured some of the smartest and most subtle writing in the series. My only qualm at present is Starlight could've been presented in a slightly more ambiguous light, that is, her brief Hannibal Lecture about how cutie marks and unique talents create painful divisions can be readily dismissed by the resilience of the Mane Six throughout the series. I feel as though Starlight had the opportunity to make a legitimate point but readily lapsed into a "you crave subjugation" mini-monologue.

Conversely, as Wind Chaser said, maybe it's better that Starlight's true motives remain opaque for the time being. The lack of answers whets the appetite.

I GOTTA SAVE RARITY

What if the April Fools is the joke and you're still leaving?

logic bomb

I think the last line sums it all up best.

GET DA HINT?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLpy4uEwvWs

WHILE THE ILLUMINATI COWER IN THE SHADOWS...

Team Rapunzel

It's all about the magic hair.

"Let It Go" is definitely not overrated. Overplayed, perhaps, but not overrated. It's a terrific song.

That being said, the song and its lyrics should be cautionary, because the sequence didn't solve Elsa's problems. She sought to close herself off from the world -- she ends the song by shutting a door in the viewer's face -- but that eventually left Anna pleading for her to return. The great irony of "Let It Go" is that Elsa appears triumphant when she's in fact averting what needs to be addressed, such as her fundamental disconnect with Anna and her anxiety regarding her own nature. For me, the song has a resonant connection with Simon and Garfunkel's "I Am Rock", which itself knowingly expressed the false hope of isolation washing away pain.

Although I don't meant to douse cold water (hyuk hyuk) on the concepts of self-empowerment and freedom, I do think it's worthwhile to remember that Elsa's greatest strength came from the love she and Anna shared. "Let It Go" tells only half the story.

Obama bit was meant as a joke.

Oh, okay! I knew of the phrase, but I wasn't entirely certain if you were truly serious. You know how people can be with their politics and world leaders!

How exactly is Target closing all its stores in Canada Obama's fault?

I caught a special on MLB Network about Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams' 1941 season (56 game hitting streak; batting over .400 for a season). Doubtful we'll ever see quite that level of prolonged (and legitimate) dominance.

Funny to think of the Cubs as a powerhouse franchise back in the early 20th century.