Live data from Hacker News

Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash

hollywoodreporter.com

401–410 of 416 posts

Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash

#401
post #326
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are saying that right now about the new Star Treks. And I don't think most disagree with the politics/social commentary, it's just so in your face/contrived that it ruins the show for many.

Right, folks are totally cool with gays and blacks and whatnot as long as they don’t have to see them. “So in your face”!

Good grief, no need to take the comments of others in bad faith. What folks mean by "in your face", is the fact that these shows will throw in a bunch of woke characters as a substitute for actually writing a good show. Instead, they'll say something like "Look, we have a disabled multiracial transsexual lesbian as a character, isn't our show great?".

The reason all the Star Trek comparisons in this comments section are so wildly off base is that Star Trek was actually a well-written show with interesting plot lines and interesting characters, that happened to have a diverse cast. Most of what's on Netflix now is just junk that that thinks if it pushes the cultural envelope far enough, no one will notice that most of the shows are little more than clumsy preaching.

Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash

#402
post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m frankly surprised that there is no moderation of this bullshit.

If you take a look at that person's comments, they appear to have started trolling hard in the last few months. Seemed pretty sane prior to that.

The irony is that my karma has actually increased since I began.

Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash

#404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take a look at that person's comments, they appear to have started trolling hard in the last few months. Seemed pretty sane prior to that.

The irony is that my karma has actually increased since I began.

Sure. Comments can only go to iirc -4 before they get killed and stop taking downvotes, and flagkills don't affect karma directly at all. So it makes sense that, from your relatively few comments that remain visible to the vast majority who don't turn on showdead, you'd see a signal that's skewed artificially high. I expect that'll remain the case right up till the ban.

Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash

#405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony is that my karma has actually increased since I began.

Sure. Comments can only go to iirc -4 before they get killed and stop taking downvotes, and flagkills don't affect karma directly at all. So it makes sense that, from your relatively few comments that remain visible to the vast majority who don't turn on showdead, you'd see a signal that's skewed artificially high. I expect that'll remain the case right up till the ban.

No post body was provided.

Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash

#406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Comments can only go to iirc -4 before they get killed and stop taking downvotes, and flagkills don't affect karma directly at all. So it makes sense that, from your relatively few comments that remain visible to the vast majority who don't turn on showdead, you'd see a signal that's skewed artificially high. I expect that'll remain the case right up till the ban.

Quoted post unavailable.

[deleted]

Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash

#407
post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the other poster. It’s not relatable. No offence to the minorities. It feels like forced messaging to the rest of us. Why represent only minorities in race, ethnicity and sexuality? Why not represent people such as war widows, people with skin diseases, mental disabilities, people with above average heights, obese people, etc.? For those of us not living in the USA, it feels like cultural imperialism. “W…

“Rest of us” Who is “us” and who is not worthy to be represented? You realize you’re free not to watch if seeing people that look or live differently than you is upsetting, right?

You seem triggered to me. Sorry about that. Not my intention.

Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash

#408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Comments can only go to iirc -4 before they get killed and stop taking downvotes, and flagkills don't affect karma directly at all. So it makes sense that, from your relatively few comments that remain visible to the vast majority who don't turn on showdead, you'd see a signal that's skewed artificially high. I expect that'll remain the case right up till the ban.

Quoted post unavailable.

We've banned this account for using HN for political battle. Not what this site is for—regardless of your politics.

Also, the trolling was seriously uncool. That's arson.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash

#409
post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Like, when exactly did that happen? Most people who enjoyed the new show and dropped out did so with the Thirteenth Doctor (Whittaker). There were some episodes that made me roll my eyes (e.g. the Rosa Parks one) but personally I mostly I lost interest because of the pacing and the IMO blandness of the characters and the lack of chemistry between them (again, this is just me)…

I don’t remember Harkness, love triangles, or sexuality pre-reboot Doctor Who. I don’t recall any Doctor having relationships with companions pre-reboot, yet the opportunity to showcase that was always possible. It was a sci-fi kids show that didn’t include love, but still had great stories.

So you dislike the entire new show starting with the Ninth Doctor, not just the more recent series. That's important context. FWIW I'd argue that the Eight Doctor also had a heavy romance subplot, so I guess your cut-off is 1989.

That's all percectly reasonable but I don't see how this has anything to do with the discussion related to the article, given that the new Doctor Who show started in 2010, Netflix only started doing its own productions in 2013 and most complaints about "too much politics" tend to be about media produced in the mid-2010s onwards (the Ghostbusters reboot was released in 2016).

Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash

#410
post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any idea why so many would be bisexual vs fully homosexual? This number is really what makes me believe it is more of the ‘woke’ politics being pushed. I view this as (potentially) individuals who have no group and who are desperate to cling to something that makes them a victim in this world. Biphobia is a thing and it is a thing in gay/lesbian communities just as it is among straight people and your statement dem…

I agree with your train of thought on most of your post. Though disagree with the below segment. >And even today left-handed people encounter some discrimination or bias (intentional or not) in their daily lives. Utensils may still be needlessly tailored to right-handed people or left-handed alternatives may be unavailable simply because nobody considered the need for them or left-handed people are just expected to m…

> Right handed people are roughly 90% of the world population. So, as a business owner, why would you cater half your production to something that only 10% of the population finds appealing?

Wheelchair users only make up an estimated 1% of the US population. Would you argue businesses shouldn't try to make their storefronts wheelchair user accessible, e.g. installing ramps or wider pathways were applicable?

The point isn't just that left-handed people hardly find any products that actively cater to them, it's that many products explicitly exclude them by design. And alternatives are often hard to find and/or more expensive.

I'm not accusing any business of making a deliberate decision to be inaccessible. Inaccessibility is the default because the group is in the minority. But through statistical bias alone left-handedness effectively acts as a disability.

The question is ultimately one of equality of opportunity. Do you think that society should be shaped in such a way that statistical bias is compensated or do you think that society should reflect the statistical bias of its makeup (or option C: that society should be shaped by the biases of those with the political power and capital to shape it). If you think statistical biases should be compensated, you will necessarily end up with "dramatic overrepresentation" because the status quo is the consequence of many lifetimes of statistical bias shaping our society.

Note that there is no objectively "right or wrong answer" as this is a question about your values. And this is also what makes the question so polarizing as there's simply no way to pave over values that are the polar opposite of each other.

BTW this is ultimately the value difference that underpins the distinction between the political left and right, progressivism and conservatism, anarchism and statism: one proposes that hierarchies (i.e. power imbalances) are undesirable and should be avoided, the other believes in a (in Christian conservatism literally divinely ordained) "natural order" that is self-justified and desirable, and that any deviation from it or correction for it is a step towards societal decay (or literal "evil"). Most people tend to not use such an explicit language as they've never analyzed their own opinions (or "vibes" as the kids call it these days) in such detail but if pushed on it they usually steer one way or the other, though often with reservations that tend to be more pragmatic than ideological.

Post reply on HN