Christ Centered Gamer

Well, Elementary is a better show, so I won't miss much skipping the next season of Sherlock.

Link.

I didn't know that Christians were chemically castrating gays in the US. Figured that would have come up in the newsletter we all get with the addresses for that week's lynchings and abortion clinic bombings.

You'll excuse me if I find the link (And subsequently the claims) a little dubious. When a site declares itself to be "Exposing and combating" bias, that generally implies a very strong oppositional bias. Bias is always there, though. Journalism is picking and choosing information to tell your viewership. If people are biased (And make no mistake; we all are), then journalism will be biased.


I think this piece, though written from a U.K. perspective, said it best (Emphasis mine):

Of course, all journalism is biased, because all human beings are biased. As Richard Dawkins struggled to understand recently, there is no such thing as a simple statement of fact. News editing by definition involves choosing, organising and highlighting information, and all of those choices are subjective. Why, at the time of writing, are the BBC leading on Syria? The most shared and read articles on the site are currently "Assault charges for Rolf Harris" and "E-mail error ends up on road sign," so clearly it’s not simply a question of reader priorities; an editor at the BBC made a value judgment that Syria was more important, and that’s a form of bias. Until our robot overlords take charge, it’s inevitable.

So in which direction is the BBC biased? Two studies published in the last couple of weeks tried to answer that question. The right-wing Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) released an analysis "proving" that the BBC was left wing, while academics from Cardiff University – funded by the BBC Trust – discovered that the BBC was, in fact, right wing. Both agree that there’s a bias then, just in opposite directions.

Again, written from a U.K. perspective on U.K. journalism and politics, but I think the message about the media and bias can be applied to America.




Anyway, that doesn't have too much else to do with the actual topic. I tried watching Elementary, and I just couldn't get into it. Sherlock, with Gatiss and Moffat at the helm, sure isn't perfect. But it was just a such better-written and better-acted show...the dynamic between Freeman and Cumberbatch just works, man.

If you think the quoted portions are suspect, why didn't you investigate the links to the original interview the report provided? You opted, instead, to scoff at the source, and then move on to talk on length on bias, without determining whether the linked story was impacted by bias.

That just says a lot about your own bias, does it not?

And Elementary is a better examination of Holmes and Watson as characters in the real world (Miller's depiction is far more nuanced than Cumberbatch's, and Liu's Watson is a fully realized person, unlike Freeman's, who exists pretty much to stand slack-jawed in awe of Holmes' brilliance), creates a realistic world where everyone but Holmes isn't blindingly incompetent, and the world doesn't revolve around Holmes, and holds up to scrutiny far better than anything Moffat or Gatiss writes.

Which is also Moffat's largest weaknesses on Doctor Who.

Moffat's Doctor Who and Sherlock work so long as you don't stare too hard. They're sugar highs.

Elementary is a well rounded meal.

*EDIT: I'm in a dour mood, so I'll just remove what I said in the interest of not being a jerk*

selderane wrote: And Elementary is a better examination of Holmes and Watson as characters in the real world (Miller's depiction is far more nuanced than Cumberbatch's, and Liu's Watson is a fully realized person, unlike Freeman's, who exists pretty much to stand slack-jawed in awe of Holmes' brilliance), creates a realistic world where everyone but Holmes isn't blindingly incompetent, and the world doesn't revolve around Holmes, and holds up to scrutiny far better than anything Moffat or Gatiss writes.

Which is also Moffat's largest weaknesses on Doctor Who.

Moffat's Doctor Who and Sherlock work so long as you don't stare too hard. They're sugar highs.

Elementary is a well rounded meal.

Maybe so. But it didn't suit my tastes. Nothing about the first episode really grabbed me, for whatever reason.

No, you're not wrong, Deep. Elementary was terrible. Pretty forgettable stuff.

Except he didn't say y'all are still chemically castrating gays, he said you're still trying to treat them. Which you are. It's stupid and pseudoscientific. It's also disingenuous, much like intentionally reading more into a statement just because someone called your society out on it's bullcrap. Gods forbid you aren't treated like fracking saints.

ArchAngel wrote:No, you're not wrong, Deep. Elementary was terrible. Pretty forgettable stuff.

Also this x9

Well, Elementary is a better show, so I won't miss much skipping the next season of Sherlock.

It's okay to be wrong about both this and about the US' attitude in general towards gays :3

Both Elementary and the religious right in America are not the greatest things that ever happened. (source: was an ardent conservative religious right, now a less vengefully religious centrist)

Out of curiosity, what other actors to you actively avoid for theological reasons? Because

Not really sure why this is news. Most celebrities tend to lean left in their politics and you can't swing a dead cat in Hollywood without hitting one that's got a chip on their shoulder where Christians or Christian morality are concerned.

Is there some particular reason we should care what Cumberbatch thinks?

I missed you :3

A British celebrity is liberal? What's next, a cop eating a donut?

ChickenSoup wrote:

Well, Elementary is a better show, so I won't miss much skipping the next season of Sherlock.

It's okay to be wrong about both this and about the US' attitude in general towards gays :3

Both Elementary and the religious right in America are not the greatest things that ever happened. (source: was an ardent conservative religious right, now a less vengefully religious centrist)

Out of curiosity, what other actors to you actively avoid for theological reasons? Because

Given that you clearly cannot recognize superior character development, writing, and living worlds, I'm not sure if you are prepared for my answer...

George Clooney? Maybe. Honestly it could be just because he doesn't do a lot of film I want to see. But he's one of those actors who is so political I can't separate his portrayals from his politics. Really, if I stopped consuming entertainment from every celebrity to rankle me I'd consume none at all.

I'll still watch Sherlock. I was merely being flippant. Moffat's writing is so thin I'll likely forget it after I turn off the television. So no lasting harm to my person done.

It's hard to take any of your insults over C$'s ability to discern good writing when in the context of praising Elementary.

I still can't really see how you're serious about this. Are you messing with us? I think you're messing with us.

I was joking with him. Geeez. Dial it down a notch, will ya?

Hint: If actual insults fly over ones entertainment prefrences do yourself a favor and just ignore whatever the parties involved have to say about anything ever.

WE DON'T MESS AROUND WITH SHERLOCK OK