It may mean that Hector is a homophobe.

To be fair, in the first season Supergirl and Kara were noticeably different in how they acted. This season not so much, but then that's probably just because most of the characters don't really act in any consistent and identifiable way this season.

Frankly, David Harewood tackling almost any task in almost any character would probably make entertaining TV. It's a real shame that the show consistently ignores its best actor.

The first season felt like the writers knew what they wanted to do but just hadn't learned how to do it yet.
This season feels like they're better at doing stuff, but have no clear what they want to do, why they're doing it, or what the point of any of it is anymore.

They've done that multiple times this season.

To do so intentionally, yes. To do so clumsily seems very in character, though.

Now that's not entirely true. She's consistently sort of angry about things, and consistently violent.

I think the big difference between our vigilantes and Superman and Batman is that ours don't have superpowers like Superman, and aren't psychotic billionaires like Batman. You can't book Superman because he's a god - he can punch whomever he likes. And you can't book Batman because in the first place he'd be too…

One of the things that annoyed me, though, was that it ended up siding with Supergirl. She was utterly, detestably obnoxious the entire episode, but in the end she saves the day by "doing the right thing", and Maggie, who dared stand up to her, was forced to compromise her basic values and didn't even get to save the…

Except that most of the crooks who get punched have about as much personality as a natural disaster themselves.

I think your theory and perfect world are probably a long way from the reality of life for coalminers in 1814. After all, the miners are sacrificing their lives for their families; the victims on the ice are spending the money that could go to the coalminers on decadent frivolities. I think it's at least not wholly…

Well, when you've got a man-eating starving tiger on a leash in the middle of an unsuspecting crowd, there's good reason to at least think that there might be a possibility of danger.
The Doctor's point seemed to be that it wasn't worth living from the suffering of others, which is a point he's made many times before.…

Surely those are speeches that only CAN be given by people with power and privilege (and the Doctor is the embodiment of privilege, and indeed of a certain brand of British imperialism (no US 'Prime Directive' here - he's constantly lecturing the locals on how to better themselves by adopting a culture more to his…

It follows the same principle. You're not absolved of wrongdoing just because your "victim" intentionally tricked you into the crime. Sometimes you might be (though more legally than morally) if you're actually lured into doing it when otherwise you wouldn't - but if someone just sets up a situation that reveals how…

Well… it's not as though it was entrapment (in that Chuck wasn't luring Ernesto into anything with any reward, or with any threat). Chuck probably reasons that he just set up a test for Ernesto, one which Ernesto failed, which showed why he oughtn't to have his job anyway.

Yes, when I question 'naive' I was being sarcastic. She's naive and beyond naive.

Don't see why that's relevent?

Was about to say that.

What seems weird, though, is that all of these people basically grew up in a bunker (in space). Their entire civilisation comes from a bunker.They're not being asked to give up the only life they've ever known - they're being asked to give up the sometimes-cool, sometimes-terrifying weird adventure holiday they've…

…
…oh, you mean a four-way FIGHT!