Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

Bryce Lynch

Member
  • Content Count

    5.4k
  • Joined

Community Reputation

31.5k Excellent
  1. I was thinking they could solve all the economic problems of the UNN, the MCR and the Belt by simply putting a swear jar in Chrisjen's office.
  2. I rewatched Season 1 over the weekend and there was a lot of foreshadowing of the asteroid attack in it. Most notably, Chrisjen and her grandson lying on the roof, looking up at shooting stars, and him talking about how they were usually harmless...except for the one that killed the dinosaurs. I think Diogo's uncle's attack on the Martian patrol ship that harassed him was another example, and I believe somewhere there was a reference to men throwing rocks at each other.
  3. Chrisjen will get revenge on Inaros by flinging all the enormous stones from her jewelry at the Belt.
  4. So, you support intentional, systemic racial discrimination? I think they should just choose the best contestants based upon rational criteria like their ability to play the game well, and how interesting they might be to audiences. If some seasons, that means,70%, 80% or 90% BIPOC (or more correctly PORC - "People of the Right Colors", wonderful! I enjoy seeing a diverse group of players. But, racial quotas are despicable and IMO much more harmful and insulting to those they supposedly "benefit". Having such quotas is essentially saying, "There are enough non-whites who could be good Survivor contestants, so we need to make a rule to force the show to take more." That is a wicked and destructive lie.
  5. If underrepresentation happens due to quotas, it is wrong. If if happens due to a lower number of applications and well qualified applicants, from certain groups, there is nothing wrong with it, though I would support reasonable efforts to try to change it. For example, I have zero problem with the fact that 74% of NBA players are black, and any effort to try to change this with quotas would be outrageous. Do GenZ wokesters really make up the bulk of viewership? The NBA has seen its ratings collapse as a result of it going ultra-woke. I suspect the same could happen to Survivor. It seems like a lot of companies are making these woke choices rashly without really evaluating the impact on ratings or sales.
  6. Cook Islands was a one time social experiment, within the social experiment of Survivor, and it was very controversial. IIRC, they reshuffled the tribes very early, which took a lot of the potentially more problematic, "Which race is best at Survivor?" element, and turned it into more about how people of different ethnic backgrounds would interact and how ethnicity might affect alliances, etc. The new rules mandate discrimination against white applicants, as non-Hispanic whites are over 60% of the American population. Also, depending upon how the classify other ethnicities, it could be even worse. About 9% of the population identifies as white Hispanic. Will they be considered "POC" in Survivor's new Apartheid scheme? In addition, just this morning, I read an article reporting that a school district announced that Asian students are not considered "students of color", by "white". It appears they may have walked this back, in response to criticism. But, this brings up the possibility that Survivor might deem Asian-American applicants to be "white" or "non-BIPOC" and use quotas against them, as many universities have done to Asian-American students. You don't eliminate discrimination, with discrimination. You eliminate it by treating everyone fairly.
  7. Racial quotas are racist in general. But, this racial quota is especially reprehensible. The non-Hispanic white population is over 60%. The white-Hispanic population is about 9% So, depending upon whether they treat white-Hispanics as POC or not, they are capping the representation of about 60% or 70% of the population at 50%. This would be like making a rule that no more than 10% of players in a season could be black, when black Americans are about 12% of the population. If they capped non-Hispanic whites at about 60% it would still be wrong, but at least they would be trying to match the demographics of the American population. Under this policy, they are deliberately discriminating, based upon race, to achieve a mix that is far different than the demographics of the American population. What makes it worse, is that the "problem" they are trying to address no longer exists. They has reached a white/non-white distribution that approximated that if the American population, in recent seasons. I would have absolutely no problem with seasons with 50%, 60% or 80% "POC", as long as they got there by picking the best contestants. But, racial discrimination is ugly and even when it "favors" minorities, I believe it harms them more than it harms white people. It declares that the most important thing about minorities is their race. This marginalizes them. There is also the evil implication that they must not good enough to make it on their own, so they need discrimination to help them. BTW, I despise the racist, woke hypocrisy of the term "people of color". It is an absolute synonym to "colored people", which was deemed a slur about 50 years ago. It is just an example of our modern, woke racial insanity. Just treat all people equally. That is the Only way to end what is left of racism. Instead, the woke mob has created an ugly revival of the racism that was nearly dead 10 or 15 years ago. This is a tragedy.
  8. So, Survivor has chosen to embrace racism and racial discrimination and make it official policy. I cannot condone this hateful, reprehensible action. I am done with Survivor, and IMO, anyone who continues to watch it is supporting racism. Very sad.
  9. The "1 in 8 chance" cliche has always been BS. In every Final 8 there are contestants with a 0 in 8 chance and others with better than a 1 in 8 chance. It is kind of like claiming the last 8 teams remaining in a sports leagues playoffs all have a 1 in 8 chance. They don't. Based upon the only other EOE season, your best chance is to win the final EOE challenge as the EOE jurors are going to vote for that person, rather than for someone more deserving who made them jealous and bitter, by remaining in the game to the end, by playing well and not getting voted out.
  10. But, that's just it. It cost her nothing. Getting voted "out" does nothing to reduce one's chances of winning the $2 million. It probably increases them, as you get more chance to bond with the jurors and have to cut fewer throats.
  11. But, with the EOE abomination, EVERYONE is totally safe and secure. Getting voted off means absolutely nothing. In fact, based upon the other Fake Survivor season that used it, it is a huge advantage.
  12. The first line (which was crossed out) reads "PPD RECORDS TO FILE" The second line (also crossed out) reads "Misc Felonies 97 98 99" The third line (highlighted in blue) reads "FOR TRANSFER 10/02" The last line is illegible to me.
  13. This sort of thing makes Kim's story arc so unbelievable to me. I get people making terrible decisions. But, in BB and in BCS, when it used to be good, people made terrible decisions for reasons that made sense.
  14. Does Kim really think Steph from S&C and the guy from HHM will want to leave their promising careers at prestigious firms to defend lowlifes at her $#i+hole firm. Does she think everyone is as foolish and pretentious as she is?
  15. Meh. Two cliffhangers and I don't care how either of them turn out in 3 years, or whenever Season 6 comes out. The writing of Lalo as a cartoon super villain is clownish. I love how he shot at least 50 rounds out of a 30 round magazine, in the tunnel. Kim and Jimmy are both so unlikeable that I don't care what happens to them in Season 6. Kim's hatred for Howard seems to have come out of nowhere. Her character has become tedious to me. The whole "ruin Howard to tank the Sandpiper care" plot seems idiotic. This show has been in serious decline since the start of Season 4, and season 5 was very mediocre.
×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size