Doctor Who : If the SJW's really need a minority or female lead…

Why don't they get off their arses and create their own original content and let the general public watch it judge their creation on it's merit's?

Feminist Misandry Infests Doctor Who

People are attempting to paint "SJWs" as being disproportionately upset, but if indeed it's announced that the next Doctor is a woman, you will actually hear veins popping from around the world.

You're a nutcase.

Mainly from those labeling themselves as SJWs (I have no idea why they stick with that idiotic title).

---

(I have no idea why they stick with that idiotic title)

---

It was a title thrust upon them. Has this already been lost to history?

You're a nutcase.

You know, Jews don't refer to themselves as *beep* (well, for the most part).
Using that label seems like admitting idiocy.

It's reappropriation.


Personally, I've never seen anyone refer to themselves as an 'SJW' or as part of the 'PC brigade' (The pejorative term 'SJW' has largely replaced) without employing at least a little irony - although I am not disputing that such people may be out there.







-There is no noun that cannot be verbed.

---

Personally, I've never seen anyone refer to themselves as an 'SJW' or as part of the 'PC brigade' (The pejorative term 'SJW' has largely replaced) without employing at least a little irony - although I am not disputing that such people may be out there.

---

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiyh8-zv_HRAhUoKcAKHfqwC9QQFggbMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FTumblrInAction%2Fcomments%2F34wacs%2Fwho_wouldnt_want_to_be_called_a_social_justice%2F&usg=AFQjCNHreCB4A_08F3Ir1aWvQf1cQsnzGg&bvm=bv.146073913,d.d2s

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiyh8-zv_HRAhUoKcAKHfqwC9QQFgg0MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fsamita-sarkar%2Fwhy-i-hate-the-term-sjw_b_9651022.html&usg=AFQjCNGR7h2-jTvLIlmKyaM-FMMNyEdC_w&bvm=bv.146073913,d.d2s

And the idea that the Anti SJW's or the awful MGTOW or MRA's have as big an influence on things as the SJW's is absurd sorry. Again think the Xena remake is going to be trashed by these whiny crybabies the way that DW and Marvel and GB have by these whiny crybabies?

---

And the idea that the Anti SJW's or the awful MGTOW or MRA's have as big an influence on things as the SJW's is absurd sorry.

---

http://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2017/01/27/6ca0aa0d-0920-4d24-9bbb-315f244cb51c/resize/620x/c1cd65fa2a7eda4ebb01a328e0d671da/gettyimages-632244210.jpg

You're a nutcase.

What does that image suppose to prove, exactly?

Agreed not all anti SJW's are supportive of Trump.

Richard Dawkins who retweeted THIS cartoon hates Trump.

Also anyway I'd argue that it was the SJW's who gave us Trump. The one sided, biased, hateful media, the SJW celebs, the violent protests, the hyperbole, TRUMP IS LITERALLY HITLER, I AM LITERALLY SHAKING RIGHT NOW! all drove WAY more people into Trump's arms than any alt right website like Info Wars or Breitbart.

Also to be fair Hillary who was a crooked war monger whose policies would have most likely kicked off a war with Russia probably gave Trump a few votes too. That and her rapey, war criminal husband.

That's not nice, mocking people for not understanding what 'literally' means.

Trump ran a successful campaign of misdirection, where no one addressed any of his real talking points and instead talked about his Twitter account, which resembles most people Twitter accounts.

The media just made people not care about anything that falls under 'racist,' 'sexist,' 'misogynist,' and other buzzwords. They just made them lose any meaning or gravity. They also made people not wanting to admit their political leaning, as that will cause people to harass them and therefore no debate could have been had.

As for Hillary, she failed to address the WikiLeaks and other factual evidence that portrayed her in a negative light, which caused many people to be suspicious of her motives and character. This is also part of the media bias but to a lesser degree.

I'm not sure about the war mongering, her affiliation with the middle-east, and her stance on Syria. This is open to debate and interpretation.

It is very useful, when one is young, to learn the difference between "literally" and "figuratively." If something happens literally, it actually happens; if something happens figuratively, it feels like it is happening.

If you are literally jumping for joy, for instance, it means you are leaping in the air because you are very happy. If you are figuratively jumping for joy, it means you are so happy that you could jump for joy, but are saving your energy for other matters.

- Lemony Snicket

Nobody exists on purpose. Nobody belongs anywhere. Everybody dies.

---

Also anyway I'd argue that it was the SJW's who gave us Trump.

---

Yes, of course the SJWs are somehow responsible. You've invested far too much energy into hating them to think otherwise. But at least we can both agree Trump is undesirable, so that's progress. My point is that the movement that's diametrically opposed to SJWs has real power now. Real power. Not the sort that decides which TV shows get made.

You're a nutcase.

Do you know the phrase "You can catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar?" Well, Trump only needed to indicate that there might be honey, because "the SJWs" just kept throwing vinegar on everyone who didn't conform to their narrow worldview.

So yes, in a way, "the SJWs" helped him become the POTUS.

---

Do you know the phrase "You can catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar?"

---

Yes. Which is factually not true, but never mind.

---

Well, Trump only needed to indicate that there might be honey, because "the SJWs" just kept throwing vinegar on everyone who didn't conform to their narrow worldview.

---

That's a mighty selective take on it. Would you really categorize Trump's strategy as honey with no vinegar? What was the "honey" Trump was indicating? And who are the SJWs in this equation? Anybody on the left? Because it seems to me the left was divided even more than usual (which is already pretty divided). I wouldn't characterize Clinton Democrats as "SJWs", but maybe that's because I'm an SJW and my vote for Clinton was unequivocally an anti-Trump vote and nothing else. I do blame the Democrats for disillusioning so many on the left that so few of them turned up to vote, leaving Trump to marginally win on a technicality, but their failure had nothing to do with being "too progressive". Quite the reverse.

You're a nutcase.

SJW is nothing to do with the left, it just so happens that most of them are left-leaning.

It's about the mannerism and rhetoric over logic.

---

Would you really categorize Trump's strategy as honey with no vinegar?

---

Yes. Yes, I would. He always maintained the persona of someone who cared about his voters and of someone who wanted to work for them. The other side, where he attacked other politicians, and media outlets were mainly about how they are harming "his people." Did he attack people who believed in Hillary, did he try and shame them into submission? He might have, but not that I've seen.

---

I do blame the Democrats for disillusioning so many on the left that so few of them turned up to vote

---

That's the real question, isn't it? Did they opt out of voting because of assured success or because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for either party?

---

leaving Trump to marginally win on a technicality

---

Not a technicality. This is how the system works.

---

but their failure had nothing to do with being "too progressive". Quite the reverse.

---

I fail to understand the "too progressive" bit. From what I've seen, there was too much demonization of entire groups, no one actually addressed the issues with Clinton campaign, her character, and the issues that were brought up (such as the WikiLeaks hack). There was a lack of confidence in her - something that was swept under the rug.

---

SJW is nothing to do with the left, it just so happens that most of them are left-leaning.

---

You're acting like it's a term that's used consistently and with integrity. The first time I heard "Social Justice Warrior" it was directed at me by a self-described Mens Rights Activist because I indicated that consent was necessary when it came to sex. I was in the front lines when that term was still being tested. Now the term is widely used by people claiming to be rational and moderate, but they don't fool me.

---

He always maintained the persona of someone who cared about his voters and of someone who wanted to work for them.

---

Again, I think you're being highly selective here, and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. It sounds like you're trying to defend him while maintaining a distance. If your point is that Trump appealed to his own voters, thenyes? He's good at branding, for those who like his brand. This is in fact why I assumed he'd win. Clinton was the anti-candidate, like John Kerry before her, and those candidates never win. Even the people that voted for her hated her. Trump had real support, like Obama before him, even if his support didn't come close to rivaling Obama's. And that's why I blame the Democrats. Trump should've been easy to defeat. The election was theirs for the taking, and they blew it.

You're a nutcase.

---

You're acting like it's a term that's used consistently

---

It is indeed used loosely, but when people are having a mature discussion and the term pop-up, it describes a particular state of mind and follows an existing set of ideas.

---

The first time I heard "Social Justice Warrior" it was directed at me by a self-described Mens Rights Activist

---

It was directed at me many times. A significant portion of the people using it, don't really understand what the term actually mean, but use it as a buzzword.

---

Again, I think you're being highly selective here, and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. It sounds like you're trying to defend him while maintaining a distance.

---

Not really. Clinton's narrative was mainly "I'm a woman. Vote for me." and "I deserve it," rather than presenting herself as a messenger of the people. You might think it's a semantic wording, but that is part of what created Trump initial success.

I don't really see why pointing this out is in defense of him. I actually think that both of them are morons, but that's another discussion.

---

Trump should've been easy to defeat. The election was theirs for the taking, and they blew it.

---

Considering many of the changes that happened in the last few years, he should have had a greater margin of success, but decided to go with the "idiot circle" as an election campaign.

---

A significant portion of the people using it, don't really understand what the term actually mean, but use it as a buzzword.

---

I'm referring to the ones who invented the term. This was years ago now, when it hadn't yet entered the mainstream.

---

Clinton's narrative was mainly "I'm a woman. Vote for me." and "I deserve it," rather than presenting herself as a messenger of the people. You might think it's a semantic wording, but that is part of what created Trump initial success.

---

We've strayed so far from the topic now. I thought I was talking about how SJWs are responsible for Trump and you keep bringing up Clinton. I know Clinton ran an awful campaign. So before we proceed, let's hear your own definitions. What is a SJW, and what do they have to do with Clinton?

You're a nutcase.

---

I'm referring to the ones who invented the term. This was years ago now, when it hadn't yet entered the mainstream.

---

I'll have to concede that point. Was not around when the term was coined.

---

I thought I was talking about how SJWs are responsible for Trump and you keep bringing up Clinton

---

We both kinda brought up Trump and Clinton. I agree that it's irrelevant to the topic of 'SJW.'

---

So before we proceed, let's hear your own definitions

---

I think I mentioned it earlier. To put it succinctly; it is a state of mind of someone who promotes or argue from emotion and who injects political stances based on ideological or political preference.

---

Using that label seems like admitting idiocy.

---

I can't argue that circular logic. It's just that the anti-SJW crowd (or Alt-Right, Neo-Nazis, whatever we're calling them) live in such an echo chamber that none of their more recent insults could possibly be insulting to anyone that's not them.

You're a nutcase.

Of course, when you don't have an argument, just label those you don't like as Nazis.

The Alt-right are not "anti-SJW," the are the SJWs of the political right.

---

I can't argue that circular logic.

---

What circular logic?

---

live in such an echo chamber

---

Self-awareness. Get some.

---

Why don't they get off their arses and create their own original content and let the general public watch it judge their creation on it's merit's?

---

The SJW's and third wave feminists don't give a sh!t about representation that's the thing.

There are already dozens of tv shows and film series that have female leads. SJW's don't EVER mention them or review them. All they want is to take away roles from men because they hate them. They want to stick it to the "priviliged, cis white, entitled fanboys"

Fact is anyone who says that there are no hero roles for women is just showing their extreme ignorance.

Xena, ran for 6 seasons was at the height of its popularity was seen in more countries than even Classic Who and they even named a planet after her. It was entirely female dominated. Its two leads are bisexual women, her supporting characters were mostly women, her mom, her daughter, the Amazons, her two main enemies Alti and Callisto were both women etc.

Buffy ran for 7 seasons (as long as any Star Trek) was seen in over 100 countries and is regarded as the most influential cult series of its generation. So many modern cult series are made in its image including, Doctor Who (2005) and both of its spin off's Torchwood and Class.

Charmed ran for 8 seasons. Longer than ANY Star Trek series, and at the time until it was surpassed by Supernatural was the longest running American genre series ever made. Even today its one of the top 5 longest running sci fi or fantasy series ever. Its either it or Red Dwarf that's number 5. Red Dwarf has more seasons, but Charmed has more eps.

Once Upon A Time is currently I believe on its 6th season, and whilst I personally think its not quite as strong as it once was, its still got a big following. The main hero and villain/anti heroes are both women.

Star Trek Voyager ran for 7 seasons and okay whilst Janeaway isn't as iconic as Kirk, and Picard at the time her series was as successful as Picards and more so than Kirk's.

Dark Angel ran for 4 years. Not that bad a run for a sci fi show. Longer than Star Trek TOS, Lost in Space and as long as Futurama too.

Then of course there is the Alien film series, the Resident Evil Film series, and all of those wonderful Chinese films like the Bride with White Hair, The Heroic Trio etc.

To even act like female heroes is a big deal nowadays is ridiculous. Who the f^ck even cares?

The reason people are opposed to things like DW becoming a woman, the female Thor and Wolverine etc is because people don't like beloved characters being replaced by others. The same applies when they are replaced by men. Nobody liked Damien Wayne taking Bruce's place.

Added to that these SJW themed films are so obnoxious too both behind the scenes in how they are promoted and on screen. The directors are virtue signalling about how much they like women compared to the sexist fanbase like Paul Feig and JJ Abrams, or Patrick Ness and the product itself is often full of anti white men propaganda.

THAT'S why people hate them, but they never take it on board and instead spout crap about how its because we hate dirty women having any role other than the sidekick in a sci fi or fantasy show and round and round it goes till the crybabies get their way.

Don't forget the underworld series ,Sarah Jane Adventures,tomb Rider

---

Why don't they get off their arses and create their own original content and let the general public watch it judge their creation on it's merit's?

---

That's too sensible for these clowns. they want to change everything so it's suitable for feminists and the LGBT minority. they don't care if the show becomes shat as long as they get their female or LGBT Doctor.

And then we'll mysteriously get some ratings saying how good and wildly popular the new female doctor is.











Walking on water is like finding a non fake female profile on a dating sitea miracle!

---

That's too sensible for these clowns. they want to change everything so it's suitable for feminists and the LGBT minority. they don't care if the show becomes shat as long as they get their female or LGBT Doctor.

And then we'll mysteriously get some ratings saying how good and wildly popular the new female doctor is.

---

Agreed, if they got their way, the show would take a dive in the ratings which would lead to cancelation.

Perhaps that is what they actually want?

Feminist Misandry Infests Doctor Who

If only you would be so brave as to talk to these people themselves and stop bothering people who have no relation to them whatsoever.

If only you bunch of whiners would start expressing your own opinions instead of complaining about what other people want.


As All Books Claim Eternity Has Many Universes

---

If only you would be so brave as to talk to these people themselves and stop bothering people who have no relation to them whatsoever.

If only you bunch of whiners would start expressing your own opinions instead of complaining about what other people want.

---

You are kidding right? I do nothing but talk to these people. I talked to Claudia Boleyn a many times about this.

Fact is its these people who often do things like shut down the comments section on their vids, block people (look at Steve Shives who has half the internet blocked). Milo Yiannopolous has offered to donate to any feminist charity Anita Sarkeesian wants if she will debate with him about video games and so far.. She's said NOTHING!

Also I might add its Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn who went to the UN and tried to get the internet to censor criticism of them arguing that hate speech and harassment is not just what's illegal, its also just telling her she sucks and is a liar!

The anti SJW side are also the ones who try and tar all opposition as sexist, and racist and homophobic in order to silence them too.

You, maybe, but what about all these others people who come on HERE where there are NO SJWs WHATSOEVER.

How many times do you encounter them HERE (unless you consider me one, but I barely even talk about it in the first place)?

What is the point of defensively stating these things over and over again to people who aren't even on the other side of the debate? I would be more receptive to all these arguments were there a balance between giving their own opinion and criticising another.

Alas, 90% of the threads on this board regarding Capaldi's decision and potential next doctors are of the following:
(1) I bet THEY want a young, handsome doctor and that's why he was pushed out.
(2) I bet THEY want a woman now, for X and Y reason I thought of myself.
(3) I bet THEY want [insert minority group here] now, for X and Y reason I thought of myself.
(4) Satirizing what people suppose THEY want.



And, really, how many threads are there that (4) is supposed to satirize?

How many people are there on this board that would belong the the THEY in (1), (2) and (3).

I don't give a damn how much you argue with SJWs outside of this board, though I'll commend you for actually engaging them (unlike a lot of other people). The point is, most of us are just observing this from our POV. We are constantly bombared with THEY THEY THEY THEY, but we aren't they. Still we are addressed as THEY. As a feminist myself, I always feel forced in the position to defend this THEY, because my opinion would immediately be crowded together with that one anyway.

Do you see what I'm getting at? If you want a genuine discussion, people need to come in with THEIR OWN opinions and engage others. Don't come in with other people's opinions and engage people as if they already hold them in order to facilitate your arguments against them.

What I'm asking for is two simple things:
(1) people's OWN opinions (what doctor would they themselves like to see, which actors, why, how, etc.)
(2) people engaging each other's arguments that are ACTUALLY THERE. No suppositions, no "yeah well, but THEY would probably say X", just directly addressing what is there.

I can't believe I'm already breaking my own promise that I wouldn't respond to you anymore, but I feel like there must be some part of you that is actually capable of nuance.


As All Books Claim Eternity Has Many Universes

And just compare the replies to threads that start with assumptions, "if SJW really want X" and, for example, the one we had earlier this week that merely asked "are any female fans against a female doctor?"

Come on, the difference is so damn obvious. You can actually talk about female doctors and minorities and whatever the *beep* you want to talk about, just don't come into discussions with an inherent value judgement and suppositions about what this abstract THEY want.

Because the people you talk to outside of this board are, in fact, not here.


As All Books Claim Eternity Has Many Universes

I don't suppose this is a good time to bump my PC SJW Club thread?

---

I can't believe I'm already breaking my own promise that I wouldn't respond to you anymore, but I feel like there must be some part of you that is actually capable of nuance.

---

Dudette don't you see the irony? Going on about how we should all engage in discussion whilst saying that you are blanking someone because you don't like their opinions. And insultingly then saying that they have no nuance?

Isn't that EXACTLY what you were accusing us of doing?

---

How many times do you encounter them HERE

---

Inglorious Sister for one, and I did try and talk to Man of Iron before he did his "KEEP YOUR HATE SPEECH OFF OF IMDB, KEEP YOUR HATE SPEECH OFF OF IMDB, KEEP YOUR HATE SPEECH OFF IMDB!" response to me for saying that Islam was a disgusting, racist, homophobic, sexist religion that worships a pedophile (which it is)

---

4) Satirizing what people suppose THEY want.

---

Actually the harshest threads here have once again been from the SJW's like Man of Iron who started a thread mocking me, Dalek Fred who reported me for NOTHING etc.

---

Still we are addressed as THEY. As a feminist myself, I always feel forced in the position to defend this THEY, because my opinion would immediately be crowded together with that one anyway.

---

Its the total opposite. Anyone who says ANYTHING even remotely critical of feminism is labelled a sexist, or a member of the alt right.

---

Islam was a disgusting, racist, homophobic, sexist religion that worships a pedophile (which it is)

---

That's uncalled for. Islam is an Abrahamic religion and as such has the same flaws of all Abrahamic religions - no need to single it out.

As for Mohammed being a pedophile - he was a man of the times. It was not uncommon for men to marry nine-year-olds, and Aisha was a spirited little thing. She challenged him many times. After his death, however, she became his biggest advocate.

Nobody exists on purpose. Nobody belongs anywhere. Everybody dies.

---

As for Mohammed being a pedophile - he was a man of the times. It was not uncommon for men to marry nine-year-olds, and Aisha was a spirited little thing. She challenged him many times. After his death, however, she became his biggest advocate.

---

Ever heard of Stockholm Syndrome?

*beep* it sounds like you are defending the sick *beep*

Feminist Misandry Infests Doctor Who

I don't like the idea of child brides, but if it was the norm among people at that time and in that region, then how can we expect Mohammed to have known better? If you want more information about Aisha (and I know you do) then here you go:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

Nobody exists on purpose. Nobody belongs anywhere. Everybody dies.

Child brides by way of social contracts is one thing, but consummating the marriage at age nine is indefensible.

This whirlpool's got such seductive furniture
It's so pleasant being drowned

You're right of course, but as I told silver strike, I was just trying to defend Islam. I guess you can stand in solidarity with people without approving of their religion. I hate the phenomenon of child brides in parts of the world now. Can we say they don't know better, or are they just so callous that females are slaves and playthings to them? I think they should know better. Following that line of logic Mohammed should have known better.

Nobody exists on purpose. Nobody belongs anywhere. Everybody dies.

---

I guess you can stand in solidarity with people without approving of their religion.

---

Yes, this.

I have to be very careful in what I say about certain topics because I work in education, and the people who are hot on EOAD (Equal Opportunities and Diversity) are not always nuanced enough to realise that you can tolerate or even like someone without necessarily approving of every aspect of their political or religious beliefs.

This whirlpool's got such seductive furniture
It's so pleasant being drowned

---

As for Mohammed being a pedophile - he was a man of the times

---

It was never acceptable to Marry a child at the age of six and certainly not to a full adult. Islam is unique in that regard.

---

She challenged him many times

---

Well, that says more about him than it does about her. I don't understand that point you are trying to make here.

---

After his death, however, she became his biggest advocate.

---

That may very well be true but does not justify anything.

---

It was never acceptable to Marry a child at the age of six and certainly not to a full adult. Islam is unique in that regard.

---

You are right. Judaism did have the decency to outlaw child brides, and it is the oldest Abrahamic religion. I just know Muslims get very defensive when you criticize Mohammed, and what with the attacks they endure in the United States, I wanted to stand in solidarity with them. FWIW Muslims will say the records are lies and he didn't consumate the marriage until she was 16 but I think that they're just blind apologists. It was a mistake to defend him because sex before puberty, especially by a full-grown adult, is very traumatic and who knows what health problems she suffered later in life. My only argument, in this regard, is that he must not have known better.

Nobody exists on purpose. Nobody belongs anywhere. Everybody dies.

---

I just know Muslims get very defensive when you criticize Mohammed

---

Well, look how we, on this board, become defensive about a TV show. Now, multiply it by a thousand (at least). I understand why people of a certain religion are angered by it but don't accept their actions as a legitimate response (and I think we all know to what actions I am referring to).

---

and what with the attacks they endure in the United States

---

What attacks? I am not aware of any, beyond maybe a few isolated incidents.

---

FWIW Muslims will say the records are lies and he didn't consumate the marriage until she was 16

---

That's the problem with ancient texts. They leave much to interpretation. They may be right, for all I know.

---

My only argument, in this regard, is that he must not have known better

---

Unlikely. Though, I don't think we'll ever know the real truth about the man. He was either Genghis Khan or Gandhi or worse, or better. I think dwelling too much about historical context we don't have, is a bit pointless, but we should talk about the issues currently operating in religious communities.

---

Well, look how we, on this board, become defensive about a TV show.

---

I'm not sure that's true. On other boards, I remember one fan claiming she hit people if they criticised the show, but I don't think that's the norm, and I've never seen it here.

Criticism here tends to be favouring one era over the other - whether it's RTD vs SM, or Classic Who vs New Who, or whatever. But on the rare occasion somebody badmouths the whole phenomenon of Doctor Who, the response is normally, "If you don't like it, don't watch it," rather than, "How dare you denigrate the greatest expression of human imagination ever to appear on TV!"

This whirlpool's got such seductive furniture
It's so pleasant being drowned

---

Dalek Fred who reported me for NOTHING etc.

---

No, you were reported for poop-posting OT political excrement. As explained.

Reporting you for nothing looks more like well, this

BAM, sunshine

______

I'm 100% with the OP, the simple fix is to give Romana her own show they can make her and Asian, black, Hispanic whatever and let the show stand on its own.

You've given an answer but is it really to the question

If the question is "Why isn't X group represented more on TV" then you would have given an answer (to which the question is how easy is it to get any content produced on tv).

However, I expect the question is more along the lines of "Given the fact that we have a series that not only constantly replaces its lead actors but also, unlike other series which do the same such a James Bond, does this with an in universe justification which also makes a virtue of the separate actors all playing separate characters making possible numerous "X Doctors" episodes where the different personalities, why do we not ask what the limit of what these personalities are?" - especially as unlike James Bond or even Buffy the Vampire Slayer there is no set canon and writers have made up the rules as they went along

Some people are prepared to say "For me, the key traits of the Doctor are X, Y and Z but I don't think trait A, even though it has been shared by previous actors is particularly important to my conception of the Doctor

Other people say "Actually for me Trait A is of definitive importance, even more so than Trait Z"

I think that the two sides can have quite reasonable discussions on this subject PROVIDED they take each other's motives entirely as stated and not, for example say "Oh you don't think the Doctor should be Z, you are obiviously a total Zist who doesn't think Zs should have a vote, look here's a youtube video where someone said that so you must be exactly the same"

1 mark deducted for not being Curse of Fenric. Insert 'The' into previous if you are Ant-Mac

---

Why don't they get off their arses and create their own original content and let the general public watch it judge their creation on it's merit's?

---

They don't create new content, they latch on and gender swap.

Question: How much of Doctor Who's finances rely on toy sales? Capaldi doesn't sell as well as Smith and Tennant, cause he's too old for children (and yes the Doctor was old in the 60s/70s/80s but kids like young people.) Would a female Doctor sell toys? Or rather, would BBC believe that a female Doctor could sell toys? Iron Man X (I don't give a crap about IM so I don't remember which it was) originally had a female villain but they changed it before filming to male cause Ike what's-his-name was still in charge of the MCU and he cared more about selling toys than making movies. When The Force Awakens was released there were so many complaints about the toys because there wasn't ones for Rey - the main character - cause Disney had assumed their clientele (boys) wouldn't want a girl toy (which is dumb, my kid brother has one of those Disney Infinity X-Box/Nintendo/some console games and he has tons of characters - male and female - including Iron Man and the likes, but his favorite is the girl from Brave.)

So do you guys think it's likely that the new Doctor will be a young, Caucasian male just to maximize the toy sales? BBC will probably think boys are a larger market than girls when talking of a scifi show. I do know adults buy toys as well but I do think children ie their parents are the main target.


Do you even know what honor is?
- A horse.