What Do You Think Would Be The Reaction Of Filmbros To Actual Classic Cinema?

[Caffeine Freak]

8 hours ago, DSC said:

This IS well worth a damn caring about.

 

It really isn't, though. For one thing, the people getting radicalized towards violence online aren't getting it from some edgy anti-woke entertainment critic on Youtube, they're getting it from fear porn peddling grifters who tell them their future is hopeless. 

 

@DSC, I'm going to give you this advice one final time, in the clearest way I can: you should seriously get offline for a while and go experience life in other ways. I'm somewhat going out on a limb here by giving you more life advice than I typically give people online---and you're obviously perfectly within your right to ignore this and tell me to go piss up a rope---but my gut is telling me it's the right thing to do. I'll admit that as a person whose job and primary hobbies all revolve around staring at computer screens for hours at a time, I'm not really the most qualified one to tell someone else to go touch grass. But that doesn't change the fact that what you're doing to yourself is unhealthy. You aren't doing yourself or anyone else any good by continually finding new things to be pissed off, depressed and terrified over. You bumped this thread for what reason, exactly? To rage about a content creator on YT and his Tweet towards a tech journo with a cushy job, and also at another member of this forum for a post he made months ago, when you're extremely unlikely to ever meet *any* of these people? How many times have you posted threads here or made posts where you talked about how much your mental health was suffering, and the catalyst for your current struggle was something you read online? The more you keep falling into this cycle where you dwell on things that make your capillaries burst, the more harm you're doing to yourself. Stop doing it. 

 

You deserve more out of your life than what you limit it to by being mad at the internet all day.

Edited November 6, 2022 by Caffeine Freak

[Captain Keen]

On 8/1/2022 at 11:14 PM, TheFocus said:

i mean, it's the Critical Drinker (get it? Critical-THINKER? ha ha) this guy is the perfect representation of modern Movie Youtube. but, i'll give him this: he knows how to make money off of a certain political lane very well.

Yeah that dude is one of the reasons I stopped watching YouTube videos about filmmaking (and pop culture in general). I feel like it’s a drug where they drawn you in with one video that seems decent and then suddenly you realize “oh this guy is riling people up with specific political talking points and laughing alllllll the way to the bank.”

 

I actually went to film school and have been working in that industry for over 15 years (mix of film, docu, tv and promo work) so it hits close to home to me. It’s also interesting because, while I enjoy a good blockbuster from Star Wars to Jurassic Park to even MCU stuff, my favorite era by far is the New Hollywood era of the late 60s to November 1980 and it seems like too few people give a s—t about that anymore. Forget going back to older school stuff like Bicycle Thieves or Citizen Kane or M or *gasp* the silent era.

 

Hollywood is realllllyyy not in good shape right now, and we are very much in an era of change. One positive flip side of all of this is film preservation is incredible, there are so many old and obscure films available in at least HD with brand new transfers. Some of my favorite lesser known movies, such as Sorcerer from 1977, The Passenger from 1975 and Come and See from 1985, have all had new restorations done in the last 10 years that look incredible. Same for older films like A Matter of Life and Death or Lost Horizon. Hell, you can even watch Creature from the Black Lagoon and It Came from Outer Space at home in 3D.

 

Anyway YouTube movie critics suck…

 

/endrant

 

(One guy I DO like is the History Buffs dude, his channel is worth checking out. I first became aware of him watching his ep on Lawrence of Arabia.)

[Rudolph]

19 minutes ago, Captain Keen said:

Anyway YouTube movie critics suck…

I disagree. There are some good ones that have been mentioned earlier in this thread.

 

What sucks is clout-chasing assholes like that Critical Drinker dillhole whose anti-social behavior is very much incentivized by a toxic business model.

[Captain Keen]

58 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

I disagree. There are some good ones that have been mentioned earlier in this thread.

I mean, yes, of course there are some good ones. But I used the word “critic” purposefully. I find the channels that are actually interesting to me, especially in my advancing age, are more analysis or history rather than “this is bad and this sucks and why can’t things be like they used to be.” Unless there’s comedy involved, like the Pitch Meetings, or Sideways who did a great critique of Cats (but he also does a lot of “why is this so good” and his critiques are actually pretty smart and non-reactionary).

 

I can’t really think of a single YouTube channel that I like where the majority of the content is negative or about putting things down, especially when it’s “commentary” or that type of podcast-y format.

[RDETalus]

1 hour ago, Captain Keen said:

Hollywood is realllllyyy not in good shape right now

Could you elaborate? A lot of things in movies feel wrong / bad to me, but I don't have any film expertise or industry knowledge to really pinpoint why I feel that way.

[Rudolph]

30 minutes ago, Captain Keen said:

“this is bad and this sucks and why can’t things be like they used to be.”

I would call such person a nostalgic critic, but since the title has already been claimed by Doug Walker, I suppose the term "reactionary" ought to do, especially given how the people you describe tend to come across as rather conservative when it comes to their politics.

 

I do not know, the word "critic" does not have a negative connotation to me.

[Captain Keen]

1 hour ago, RDETalus said:

Could you elaborate? A lot of things in movies feel wrong / bad to me, but I don't have any film expertise or industry knowledge to really pinpoint why I feel that way.

The TLDR version is the Wall Street bros have taken over. It’s always been a business with the goal of making a profit, of course, but now the entire industry is monopolized by just a few companies. Fewer creative risks are taken, and Hollywood is bankrolling fewer new ideas and new voices than ever before. Just think about it, who are the biggest directors for the most part right now? It’s a lot of the same people from 30-40 years ago, your James Camerons and Ridley Scotts and Steven Spielbergs and Martin Scorseses (all of whom have new movies coming out soon).

 

In the past, a studio might take a chance on a creative vision in hopes it could be the next big thing, or just be a good movie. Now we rarely have movies instead we have “brands” and spreadsheets decide what will get bankrolled and what will be ignored and so many movies are designed in committee rooms. I’m over simplifying and there have been some good trends outside of Hollywood (lots of great films and shows coming from outside of America!) but that’s the general gist. The business part has overwhelmed the show part. Fewer creative risks, fewer chances taken, fewer original movies that do something new and never before seen. Fewer new voices who actually have the chance to create something new rather than just being hired to work on a “brand” such as an MCU movie. Please keep in mind I’m saying “fewer” and not “none at all”. There are exceptions to every rule, but the overall trends are bad.

 

@Rudolph I don’t want to get into a semantics argument, probably one of my least favorite types of Internet discussions, but I actually think we agree here and I think “reactionary” is the right word, as you pointed out. Critic isn’t a bad thing per se, there can be very smart critiques of work or trends, but I feel the term has been somewhat hijacked by reactionaries. It’s not purely a political thing, I think one very damaging trend of the past decade or so has been the nostalgia porn. “This reminds me of that thing from my childhood!” South Park is a wildly uneven show but their Memberberries episode really nailed the satire of this type of thinking, imo. I have a friend in real life who will literally say “it reminded me of a childhood thing I liked so it’s good” or “I didn’t grow up with that so I don’t care” without any irony.

 

Thats not to say that all nostalgia is bad, of course, or that things we grew up with aren’t important, but there has to be a limit or some sort of interest in new things too. I mean just take a look at Doom, part of what’s great about it is how it’s evolved and isn’t just ONE thing or stuck in 1993. Just my two cents.

 

But also yes, the growing factionalism and tribalism in politics has seeped down into everything including discourse about entertainment and media. People like the Critical Drinker (it IS a good name I’ll give him that) obviously tap into this and they know exactly what they’re doing. It’s not even that he’s wrong about everything, but he’s purposefully stoking those fires for $$$ and he is not always making his arguments in good faith. And he’s not alone. Websites like YouTube literally incentivize people to be divisive and even cruel.

Edited November 6, 2022 by Captain Keen

[DSC]

12 hours ago, RDETalus said:

Receiving threats is basically part of the job description for well-known public figures such as politicians and journalists. You're going to find a million bajillion people on the internet making every single sort of threat imaginable. Really not worth your time

Its not just the death threats: their extremism is also expressed in numerous other ways. Besides that, they are a very serious thing, and I don't understand how them being so common somehow makes it ok. On the contrary, it just goes to show how awful radicalism has infected and infiltrated public speech. That woman mentioned how she got a significantly increase on the influx of such things, its definitely something serious.

 

10 hours ago, Endless said:

I wouldn't consider myself a fan of the Critical Drinker, but I've seen some of his videos and I mostly agree with his points about movies and series, and shit, you gotta really have your brain turned off to enjoy any of modern films the big entertainment companies such as Marvel, which IMO, has become absolute crap.

 

I don't really follow more about him other than the videos, and shit, why would I want to learn every detail and thought he has on Twitter? Twitter, of all places, best place to throw you into the worse pits of human kind thought, ten times worse than Reddit, and the best place you watch yourself become a husk. He's whole persona is that he's some sort of cynic and jerk that reviews films. Abrasive and ''drunk''. Not the kind of format I enjoy, but I agree with most points about movies.

So you are completely fine with watching someone with such abhorrent and bigoted thoughts just because you enjoy some of his content?

 

10 hours ago, Endless said:

Wtf are you supposed to do to some Tweet? And why against the Critical Drinker and not the people that actually sent the threats then?

 

Because the CriticalDrinker is the one who's creating this kind of space and atmosphere, incentivizing this kind of thought and giving it a platform?

 

10 hours ago, Endless said:

What in the fuck are you talking about. If this is enough to radicalize you, shit man, I think you should look after yourself and re think how you spend your time on the internet. I'm pretty sure a random film reviewer on Youtube is probably in the least concern of extremist groups in the US right now. The only radical here is you.

I'm sorry, but you seriously think someone who is allowed to expresses views of extreme misogyny and hatred so openly and explicitly in the public sphere to an audience of millions can't possibly be dangerous? And have you even seen the comments section of his videos? Being a tool to spread this kind of stuff isn't a pissing contest, just because he isn't quoting Mein Kampf with a nazi flag behind him while holding an AK and explosives doesn't mean he can't still be contributing to leading people to an alt-right pipeline. Also... My main point in all of this is that extremism and radicalization is extremely bad, yet... You call me the radical...? What?

 

10 hours ago, Endless said:

And this is a Doom forum, for crying out loud, you wont find the answers to your concern, or the validation you seek, here.

Sorry I went seeking for help into the off-topic section of a forum where I spent most of my online time on and are familiar with its members, considering many of them friends and people I can rely on.

[MS-06FZ Zaku II Kai]

10 hours ago, Caffeine Freak said:

 

It really isn't, though. For one thing, the people getting radicalized towards violence online aren't getting it from some edgy anti-woke entertainment critic on Youtube, they're getting it from fear porn peddling grifters who tell them their future is hopeless. 

 

@DSC, I'm going to give you this advice one final time, in the clearest way I can: you should seriously get offline for a while and go experience life in other ways. I'm somewhat going out on a limb here by giving you more life advice than I typically give people online---and you're obviously perfectly within your right to ignore this and tell me to go piss up a rope---but my gut is telling me it's the right thing to do. I'll admit that as a person whose job and primary hobbies all revolve around staring at computer screens for hours at a time, I'm not really the most qualified one to tell someone else to go touch grass. But that doesn't change the fact that what you're doing to yourself is unhealthy. You aren't doing yourself or anyone else any good by continually finding new things to be pissed off, depressed and terrified over. You bumped this thread for what reason, exactly? To rage about a content creator on YT and his Tweet towards a tech journo with a cushy job, and also at another member of this forum for a post he made months ago, when you're extremely unlikely to ever meet *any* of these people? How many times have you posted threads here or made posts where you talked about how much your mental health was suffering, and the catalyst for your current struggle was something you read online? The more you keep falling into this cycle where you dwell on things that make your capillaries burst, the more harm you're doing to yourself. Stop doing it. 

 

You deserve more out of your life than what you limit it to by being mad at the internet all day.

Posts like these, is the reason why Doomworld is one of the most normal sites on the internet.

[scalliano]

18 hours ago, DSC said:

And how that note, I also have another thing to address too. @scalliano, why all these months ago you bothered to try and defend this asshole? You saw he was anti-woke and started defending him immediately because you thought he shared your values? Well, I'm certain you are a good person that will regret it and change your views in light of this... But still, see how dangerous immediately siding with people just because they are on your "side" is? I have seen many people myself that at first glance appear to agree with your values, in my cases leftist who I've seen as wanting to fight the good fight, just to immediately after reveal themselves as hardcore tankies defending Stalin and the current genocide of Uyghur people. This "us vs them" thing and its accompanying inflammatory and radicalized speeches just serves to more rapidly radicalize us and make us fight each other. In times like this, we better know what we stand and fight for actually is.

Taylor Lorenz is a fake journalist who has used her position to dox people on multiple occasions.

 

Drinker is funny as hell. I stand by every word.

[RDETalus]

16 minutes ago, DSC said:

Its not just the death threats: their extremism is also expressed in numerous other ways. Besides that, they are a very serious thing, and I don't understand how them being so common somehow makes it ok.

All he said was "cry harder" on twitter. That's not extremism, misogyny, bigotry, or radicalism. Come on dude you make it out like this guy is the new hitler or something. I don't understand why this would elicit such emotions in you.

I don't know how much you know about that journalist, but she isn't exactly an innocent little angel either. She's a grown woman who made intentional choices in her career to boost her own popularity that ended up attracting a lot of negative attention. It's not a big deal all in all. I would even argue that if you're not pissing some people off, your journalism career isn't doing something right.

[Rudolph]

7 hours ago, Captain Keen said:

I don’t want to get into a semantics argument, probably one of my least favorite types of Internet discussions, but I actually think we agree here and I think “reactionary” is the right word, as you pointed out. Critic isn’t a bad thing per se, there can be very smart critiques of work or trends, but I feel the term has been somewhat hijacked by reactionaries.

Oh, I was not trying to argue there. The point of my response was mostly to take the piss out of the Nostalgic Critic. :P

 

19 minutes ago, scalliano said:

Taylor Lorenz is a fake journalist who has used her position to dox people on multiple occasions.

That people being Chaya 'Libs of TikTok' Raichik, the unrepentant transphobe who instigates terror campaigns against a fucking children's hospital?

 

What you call "doxxing" here seems to me like basic investigative journalism.

[holaareola]

 

16 hours ago, DSC said:

That's one of the things I talk about in my comment, though. At this point it isn't just some random people being assholes in the Internet. All this concentrated hate eventually just builds up to such extremes it has no option but to explode. Looking at some of those comments knowing that either the people who posted them or that are reading them might very possibly commit attacks in real life is a very scary thing.

I think yes, it can be just a bunch of random people being assholes on the Internet. Suspect a miniscule amount of the violence in my country (the UK) is internet driven-- it will be poverty driven, disaffected adolescent male driven. The country's generally far less violent than it was when my mum's generation was growing up in the 70s and 80s, despite everyone having the means to broadcast whatever vile shite they feel like. The Internet can seem more important than it is when we're all doing so much living through our devices.

 

When I get to the internet outrage of the day, recently my mind often swerves over to how people are literally going to be freezing to death this winter, here and in Europe. Homelessness is a visibly expanding problem in my city and I've spoken to many people that just can't afford the sudden spike in their costs. Food banks are being used by people that already have jobs. And while they are a vital last line of defence against hunger, foodbanks are not ideal particularly with logistics often leading to a shortfall of fresh stuff. Poverty is very likely to be reifying a class divide at the layer of biology. Front-line food bank volunteers I know have told me that some people only take the stuff that can be eaten straight because they can't afford the gas to cook. These kind of things are the political issues more likely to come up when I talk to shop assistants, security guards, cleaners or delivery people (along with immigration if they're white tbh). The issues that are critically important according to the internet discourse are wildly more likely to arise in conversation with students, those living at home, or people with jobs like mine that involve sitting at a computer all day with a large degree of control over one's time. Microdosing Twitter in your workday is a privilege. In an Amazon depot, that's called Time off Task and will get you punished.

 

Quote

I have seen many people myself that at first glance appear to agree with your values, in my cases leftist who I've seen as wanting to fight the good fight, just to immediately after reveal themselves as hardcore tankies defending Stalin and the current genocide of Uyghur people. This "us vs them" thing and its accompanying inflammatory and radicalized speeches just serves to more rapidly radicalize us and make us fight each other. In times like this, we better know what we stand and fight for actually is.

Amen to this though. This is why I am a material leftist. It's harder to do us vs them when the material facts of thriving / getting by / struggling to survive and the injustices therein are so clear to anyone. But us and them is not just easier but natural if politics is about having the right beliefs and using them as a line to divide people into good / bad.

[scalliano]

30 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

That people being Chaya 'Libs of TikTok' Raichik, the unrepentant transphobe who instigates terror campaigns against a fucking children's hospital?

 

What you call "doxxing" here seems to me like basic investigative journalism.

Don't care who she was, don't care what she did. Two things can be true at once. Linking to someone's contact details in an article just long enough for the "right" people to find it before stealth editing it out is still shitty.

 

Also, Lorenz showed up in person at Raichik's family's home, despite their having nothing to do with any of it. I'd call that harassment.

[Rudolph]

35 minutes ago, scalliano said:

 Two things can be true at once.

Not in this case, no. Exposing someone who uses the veil of anonymity to instigate harassment - which again is leading to terror campaigns against a children's hospital - is very much what an actual investigative journalist would and should do in these circumstances.

 

Chaya Raichik is using her platform to (negatively) influence the public discourse and endanger public safety, she is as fair game as any politician, lobbyist and activist out there.

Edited November 6, 2022 by Rudolph

[scalliano]

Just now, Rudolph said:

Not in this case, no. Exposing someone who uses the veil of anonymity to instigate harassment - which again is leading to terror campaigns against a children's hospital - is very much what an actual investigative journalist would and should do in these circumstances.

Can you explain to me how LoTT led this "terror campaign" outside of simply posting details of what the hospital was doing? Granted, I've never actually been on Twitter, but from what I did see I couldn't find any evidence of actual incitement.

 

Also, if what Lorenz did was "investigative journalism", why did she stealth edit the article to remove the details mere hours later?

[Rudolph]

39 minutes ago, scalliano said:

Can you explain to me how LoTT led this "terror campaign" outside of simply posting details of what the hospital was doing?

Look up stochastic terrorism. And no, the hospital is not doing gender-affirming surgeries on minors. Raichik lied: undermining the human rights of marginalized persons - in this case, through old-fashioned moral panic - is very much her stated goal.

 

I mean, I cannot believe I have to explain to a grown adult the notion of causation: if I have a massive platform and I keep using it to frame you as a bad person who needs to be stopped, even if I do not explicitly call for violence or harassment, chances are high that the people in said audience will believe me and become willing to take matters in their own hands. Like, holy shit, Alex Jones just got successfully sued over his role in inciting harassment against the parents of the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre; do you think he too was "simply posting details"?!?

[DSC]

7 hours ago, RDETalus said:

All he said was "cry harder" on twitter. That's not extremism, misogyny, bigotry, or radicalism. Come on dude you make it out like this guy is the new hitler or something. I don't understand why this would elicit such emotions in you.

She got a giant influx of death and rape threats, this guy straight up mocks and belittles her for that. Can't you see for yourself how extremely and obviously it is an incredibly shitty thing to do? Are you seriously this oblivious? Yes, making fun and insulting people because of reasons like that IS misogyny and extremism. Also, stop putting words in my mouth about he being the next Hitler or other shit I didn't say. I even made it very explicit in my original comment you don't need to be a literal nazi in a SS uniform to bring harm upon others.

 

Quote

I don't know how much you know about that journalist, but she isn't exactly an innocent little angel either. She's a grown woman who made intentional choices in her career to boost her own popularity that ended up attracting a lot of negative attention. It's not a big deal all in all. I would even argue that if you're not pissing some people off, your journalism career isn't doing something right.

So you're saying its her fault for receiving death and rape threats? Nice victim blaming.

 

Edited November 6, 2022 by DSC

[dasho]

7 minutes ago, DSC said:

Sorry I went seeking for help into the off-topic section of a forum where I spent most of my online time on and are familiar with its members, considering many of them friends and people I can rely on.

 

Nobody is chastising you for this; they are perhaps getting annoyed that you ask for help with no intention of being willing to receive it.

[dasho]

24 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

I mean, I cannot believe I have to explain to a grown adult the notion of causation: if I have a massive platform and I keep using it to frame you as a bad person who needs to be stopped, even if I do not explicitly call for violence or harassment, chances are high that the people in said audience will believe me and become willing to take matters in their own hands.

 

Would you agree this is the same for when people are accused of being 'terror instigators' and 'nazis' for expressing beliefs you disagree with?

 

EDIT: One example I have in mind would be the murder of Cayler Ellingson.

Edited November 6, 2022 by dasho

[scalliano]

59 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

Look up stochastic terrorism. And no, the hospital is not doing gender-affirming surgeries on minors. Raichik lied: undermining the human rights of marginalized persons - in this case, through old-fashioned moral panic - is very much her stated goal.

 

I mean, I cannot believe I have to explain to a grown adult the notion of causation: if I have a massive platform and I keep using it to frame you as a bad person who needs to be stopped, even if I do not explicitly call for violence or harassment, chances are high that the people in said audience will believe me and become willing to take matters in their own hands. Like, holy shit, Alex Jones just got successfully sued over his role in inciting harassment against the parents of the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre; do you think he too was "simply posting details"?!?

Ah, yes - stochastic terrorism. "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" Yeah, I get it. Kind of like posting an ideological opponent's details in a tabloid article just long enough to be archived should anyone wish to, y'know, "take action", then removing said details and lying about it. Like I said, two things can be true at once.

 

As for LoTT misrepresenting the hospital's policy, what was the phone call all about then? The one where the operator explicitly stated that they did perform such surgery? I personally don't give much weight to the words of an organisation scrambling to avoid bad PR (cough*Paypal*cough) so I'm not exactly convinced by the hospital's public statements. Thing is, I don't even agree with a lot of what LoTT stands for, but at least she's bringing receipts. Y'know, investigative journalism?

 

Long and short, there is no context where I will accept Taylor Lorenz as a victim in this scenario when both parties are basically doing exactly the same thing - using their respective massive platforms to make other people look bad.

 

As for Alex Jones: Yes :P

[indigotyrian]

36 minutes ago, dasho said:

Nobody is chastising you for this; they are perhaps getting annoyed that you ask for help with no intention of being willing to receive it.

 

There's a certain dopamine hit that comes from performative outrage and righteous indignation, getting angry at what some other party is doing even (especially!) if it's completely disconnected from your personal life. Folks might not understand this but having been in DSC's shoes before I can say that anger can be a hell of a drug.

 

These Critical Drinkers and Libs of Tiktok whatevers suck but they're not worth your attention in the slightest. I don't know who these idiots are because I don't pay attention to them. Block them, ignore their videos or whatever, and also stop paying attention to the people who are trying to get you to pay attention to them because at the end of the day they're just dealers peddling a corrosive substance that they want you to shoot into your veins.

[TheMagicMushroomMan]

I would be A-okay with a "no politics allowed" rule here, just saying. It would:

 

1) Kill political arguments without discrimination.

 

2) Discourage people here from getting hung-up on politics in general.

 

3) Encourage people who do want to discuss politics to discuss them in an appropriate place.

 

There is a recurring pattern here - DSC is upset over something on the internet, asks for help, and gets the same answer each time. Each time, the answers will be framed in a more blunt fashion, because people are wondering how many more times they will have to tell him to get off the internet and to stop caring what internet whackjobs think. Then, you have Rudolph, who will flood an entire thread as long as it is politically relevant, even to a remote extent, or begin discussing politics in a thread where no political discussion was occurring before. These kinds of conversations only serve to incite anger between people who would have gotten along fine otherwise. After a while, people get tired of asking "can you please stop doing this?".

Edited November 6, 2022 by TheMagicMushroomMan

[scalliano]

6 minutes ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

I would be A-okay with a "no politics allowed" rule here, just saying. It would:

 

1) Kill political arguments without discrimination.

 

2) Discourage people here from getting hung-up on politics in general.

 

3) Encourage people who do want to discuss politics to discuss them in an appropriate place.

 

There is a recurring pattern here - DSC is upset over something on the internet, asks for help, and gets the same answer each time. Each time, the answers will be framed in a more blunt fashion, because people are wondering how many more times they will have to tell him to get off the internet and to stop caring what internet whackjobs think. Then, you have Rudolph, who will flood an entire thread as long as it is politically relevant, even to a remote extent, or begin discussing politics in a thread where no political discussion was occurring before. These kinds of conversations only serve to incite anger between people who would have gotten along fine otherwise. After a while, people get tired of asking "can you please stop doing this?".

I'm actually not entirely against this TBH. I only chimed in originally because my character was being smeared over an affinity for a Scottish dipso shitposter.

[DSC]

30 minutes ago, scalliano said:

my character was being smeared over an affinity for a Scottish dipso shitposter.

I didn't smear it. I left it very clear in my original comment that I thought it was a simple mistake.

 

 

But anyways, I'm tired of this already, and very ashamed of myself for creating yet another shitstorm. Mods, if you want, you can close this one thread down, don't want to unnecessarily extend things.

[Mr. Freeze]

1 hour ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

I would be A-okay with a "no politics allowed" rule here, just saying.

 

RIP "Ultra Progressive World", 2015-2022. 

 

And this only furthers my belief that most fans and enablers of this sensationalist Youtube hype machine are braindead. Get off Youtube, learn to read, stop making others dictate what you like and don't like, and form your own opinions. 

[mrthejoshmon]

56 minutes ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

I would be A-okay with a "no politics allowed" rule here, just saying.

I second your stance, it would be an improvement beyond measure.

 

It would be nice, for instance, if we could have a Duke Nukem related discussion where anyone who said the words "politically correct" in any context was introduced to a mighty size 13 boot, that would be splendid but idealism at it's finest.

[Mr. Freeze]

1 minute ago, mrthejoshmon said:

I second your stance, it would be an improvement beyond measure.

 

It would be nice, for instance, if we could have a Duke Nukem related discussion where anyone who said the words "politically correct" in any context was introduced to a mighty size 13 boot, that would be splendid but idealism at it's finest.

 

Damnit, I can't goof on everyone and say there were Duke fans present on January 6th anymore? This is literally 1984. 

[Captain Keen]

One thing I’ll add to this, which is kinda off topic but kinda on topic…

 

I personally believe that factionalism and tribalism are some of the most dangerous recurring human behaviors, and have led to a good majority of our wars and the destruction of various empires throughout the ages. We now live in a world where entertainment and politics have mixed to such a point it’s sometimes hard to tell them apart, and that is NOT a good thing. In my country of the good ol’ United States “political discourse” is not even about policy anymore, it’s just endless culture wars with people breaking up into their “tribes” to point fingers at what they perceive as different “tribes”. Very depressing, and it’s clear that many people do not know their history very well or know about Athens or the Roman Republic or the Weimar Republic.

 

I disagree with the idea that people should never discuss politics. What’s important is the ability to disagree with someone without casting them as your “enemy”. We’ve lost (in the larger culture) the ability to speak to each other about complex and difficult things in good faith. And to bring this full circle back, this is why I don’t enjoy watching entertainment “critiques” that are really just about creating further division or riling people up. There’s already enough of that in the world. It’s all around us, at least in the USA and Europe and parts of Latin America.

 

If you take that stuff too far, it can lead to the destruction of communities or nations or even armed conflict. Factionalism has been humanity’s main undoing the past few thousand years. We no longer live in a bunch of tribes hunting wild game in the fields, so in many ways our technology and societies have far outpaced our psychological growth. Deep down in our heads the majority of us are still stuck with that tribal thinking from thousands of years ago because evolution takes its sweet time. However, this kinda thinking only destroys what we’ve been able to create in more modern eras.

[Rudolph]

1 hour ago, scalliano said:

As for LoTT misrepresenting the hospital's policy, what was the phone call all about then? The one where the operator explicitly stated that they did perform such surgery?

No, they did not. You seem unwilling to entertain the simplest and most plausible explanation, i.e. that the phone operator - someone who has to answer questions and redirect callers all day long - was made to say things she did not really mean or understand because they are just a phone operator who had to deal with some sneaky political operative who was not doing investigative journalism but rather just seeking for ways to push a narrative.

 

If Boston Children's Hospital really was performing gender-affirming surgeries on children, you would think that there would be a lot more evidence than some overworked phone operator misspeaking while trying to terminate a call as politely and quickly as possible. Evidence like, you know, testimonies from health professionals who work at the hospital or even better actual patients having undergone gender-affirming surgeries, which would lead to an official investigation, since this would be illegal and against the normal procedure when it comes to gender transition.

 

1 hour ago, scalliano said:

As for Alex Jones: Yes :P

Of course you defend Alex Jones and believe Sandy Hook was a hoax. Why am I not surprised? -_-

 

I have had enough of your bullshit. @DSC, please do not waste any more of your time on this person.

Edited November 6, 2022 by Rudolph