I don't give a fuck how much you call your flimsy delusions "enlightenment." There is no amount of ceaseless self-deception that will make you accept the charred hellscape of being a miserable useless destitute fucking junkie piece of shit. You know what you are, and it is deeply ugly on every level.
You ever read start reading a drama thread about Star Wars or Pokemon or whatever and your eyes just glaze over as you fantasize about giving them a swirlie or wedgie?
True but people seem to be quick on the trigger when it comes to drama in gamerghazi, Circlebroke, Islam, etc.... and I miss out on the fun portions of it. I have to scrap by with what I've got.
On the flip I guess I should be happy that I don't spend enough time on said subs to find drama in them.
Oh no this isn't directed towards you OP. it's just a general PSA I give on every cancer post about this type of drama. I appreciate your hustle famalam.
He wasn't smart lol. Using the same "roasts" and same language and arguing with the same people other than me. You'd have to be blind to not figure out who he is.
The best thing about coming here is that there are plenty of reminders that make me go "at least I am not that retarded maybe there's hope for me yet".
I honestly cringe every time I see someone bitching about a movie or a video game like this.
I cringe because I used to be like this. I unironically called wonder woman "feminist propaganda" during my KIA days and looking back on that just makes me want to off myself.
I think that's you, I believe you think you get people to agree with the "fascist manifest."
Do tell, what exactly is that? Because that seems to conflict with most academic understandings of fascism.
Fascism is a set of emotions, incoherent, irrational. They have no doctrine, whatever allows them to dominate others is "true" as Paxton writes:
assumption that fascism was an “ism” like the other great political systems of the modern world: conservatism, liberalism, socialism. Usually taken for granted, that assumption is worth scrutinizing. The other “isms” were created in an era when politics was a gentleman’s business, conducted through protracted and learned parliamentary debate among educated men who appealed to each other’s reasons as well as their sentiments. The classical “isms” rested upon coherent philosophical systems laid out in the works of systematic thinkers. It seems only natural to explain them by examining their programs and the philosophy that underpinned them.
Fascism, by contrast, was a new invention created afresh for the era of mass politics. It sought to appeal mainly to the emotions by the use of ritual, carefully stage-managed ceremonies, and intensely charged rhetoric. The role programs and doctrine play in it is, on closer inspection, fundamentally unlike the role they play in conservatism, liberalism, and socialism. Fascism does not rest explicitly upon an elaborated philosophical system, but rather upon popular feelings about master races, their unjust lot, and their rightful predominance over inferior peoples. It has not been given intellectual underpinnings by any system builder, like Marx, or by any major critical intelligence, like Mill, Burke, or Tocqueville.
In a way utterly unlike the classical “isms,” the rightness of fascism does not depend on the truth of any of the propositions advanced in its name. Fascism is “true” insofar as it helps fulfill the destiny of a chosen race or people or blood, locked with other peoples in a Darwinian struggle, and not in the light of some abstract and universal reason. The first fascists were entirely frank about this.
We [Fascists] don’t think ideology is a problem that is resolved in such a way that truth is seated on a throne. But, in that case, does fighting for an ideology mean fighting for mere appearances? No doubt, unless one considers it according to its unique and efficacious psychological-historical value. The truth of an ideology lies in its capacity to set in motion our capacity for ideals and action. Its truth is absolute insofar as, living within us, it suffices to exhaust those capacities.
The truth was whatever permitted the new fascist man (and woman) to dominate others, and whatever made the chosen people triumph.
Fascism rested not upon the truth of its doctrine but upon the leader’s mystical union with the historic destiny of his people, a notion related to romanticist ideas of national historic flowering and of individual artistic or spiritual genius, though fascism otherwise denied romanticism’s exaltation of unfettered personal creativity.
The fascist leader wanted to bring his people into a higher realm of politics that they would experience sensually: the warmth of belonging to a race now fully aware of its identity, historic destiny, and power; the excitement of participating in a vast collective enterprise; the gratification of submerging oneself in a wave of shared feelings, and of sacrificing one’s petty concerns for the group’s good; and the thrill of domination. Fascism’s deliberate replacement of reasoned debate with immediate sensual experience transformed politics, as the exiled German cultural critic Walter Benjamin was the first to point out, into aesthetics. And the ultimate fascist aesthetic experience, Benjamin warned in 1936, was war.
I was referring to the text called "The Fascist Manifest" which Mussolini wrote in 1919. Come on pizzashil, you could've just googled that and now you look like a fool.
Fascist leaders made no secret of having no program. Mussolini exulted in that absence. “The Fasci di Combattimento,” Mussolini wrote in the “Postulates of the Fascist Program” of May 1920, “. . . do not feel tied to any particular doctrinal form.”73A few months before he became prime minister of Italy, he replied truculently to a critic who demanded to know what his program was: “The democrats of Il Mondowant to know our program? It is to break the bones of the democrats of Il Mondo. And the sooner the better.”74 “The fist,” asserted a Fascist militant in 1920, “is the synthesis of our theory.” Mussolini liked to declare that he himself was the definition of Fascism. The will and leadership of a Duce was what a modern people needed, not a doctrine. Only in 1932, after he had been in power for ten years, and when he wanted to “normalize” his regime, did Mussolini expound Fascist doctrine, in an article (partly ghostwritten by the philosopher Giovanni Gentile) for the new Enciclopedia italiana.76 Power came first, then doctrine. Hannah Arendt observed that Mussolini “was probably the first party leader who consciously rejected a formal program and replaced it with inspired leadership and action alone.”77 Hitler did present a program (the 25 Points of February 1920), but he pronounced it immutable while ignoring many of its provisions. Though its anniversaries were celebrated, it was less a guide to action than a signal that debate had ceased within the party. In his first public address as chancellor, Hitler ridiculed those who say “show us the details of your program. I have refused ever to step before this Volk and make cheap promises.”
If you read my original point comment, you'd see how i was talking about how people like Berniecrats could easily agree with the points of the fascist manifest (which is the text i was talking about, because it has a concise summary of points that are similar to modern social democracy). This manifest (as a text) does exist, as do the points i was referring to, because they are in that text. You can pick them one by one and sell them to a socdem and they'd be none the wiser, which is the original point i was making, which you would've known if you had read the thread in which i made the comment.
I don't look like a fool, I just wanted to bait you and prove my point.
No you do. Even if you were correct, you'd still look like a sad autist because of those unnecessary walls of text.
The text exists alright, it just has no relation to fascism as an ideology. This is my larger point.
Them agreeing with elements of that text does not mean they agree with anything related to fascism.
Fascists have no program, which is why they often load whatever "program" with emotional appeals or things that make people feel good.
And even more so, there's no such thing as export brand fascism. Each fascist movement is very much tailored to the specific culture it grows in. Italian fascists weren't anything like German fascists, for example.
The only thing fascists have in common is the desire for war and conquest of other people, which is why there's never been a fascist international.
How is the term retarded? What other term describes people that have all of the same traits tumblr SJWs have except on the opposite side of the spectrum?
Wait, are you serious? You were ranting about feminist propaganda within that last year and a half and now you're ranting about about The_Donald?
I'm not trying to join in on the dogpile. I'm genuinely curious about the jump from one toxic culture to another on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Lots of Ghazi posters admitted to this in one of their confession posts.
Practically everyone here "mocks" extremism. You're noteworthy because you "rant" angrily about political conservatism. I wouldn't be surprised if you can't see the difference. But I assure you, everyone else can.
Honestly, I don't follow your /r/drama drama closely enough to meet this challenge. But in general ideologues usually argue with selective use of "facts" and shifting standards of proof. And then challenge others to point out where they were wrong.
The people willing to engage in this framework of discourse will employ an almost identical strategy, complete with citations. The original ideologue will dismiss the sources as biased, link to a wikipedia article for a particular logical fallacy, and trawl through their opponents post history. And on and on, it goes.
You can that's what they do, but you haven't proven or shwon I'm an "ideologue" on any level other than I mock the Donald and stupid conservatives.
The people willing to engage in this framework of discourse will employ an almost identical strategy, complete with citations. The original ideologue will dismiss the sources as biased, link to a wikipedia article for a particular logical fallacy, and trawl through their opponents post history. And on and on, it goes.
Funny, that sounds a lot like the Donald and conservative America.
I'm not looking to engage in political debate, I wasn't defending TDers, and I'm not the least bit interested in "proving you factually wrong".
I was just curious about your claim that you switched internet teams rather abruptly and though to gain some insight into your background. How old are you? What state/country are you in and what's the predominant culture that you find yourself in? Are you white or nonwhite?
I'm not looking to engage in political debate, I wasn't defending TDers, and I'm not the least bit interested in "proving you factually wrong".
Why make arguments you can't support?
I was just curious about your claim that you switched internet teams rather abruptly and thought to gain some insight into your background. How old are you? What state/country are you in and what's the predominant culture that you find yourself in? Are you white or nonwhite?
First of all, I never "switched teams" because I don't subscribe to any teams. I view SJWs as a problem, so I spent time discussing SJWs in a community of the like-minded.
Slowly but surely the sub was co-opted by for lack of a better word, right-wing SJWs. And it because obvious at that point right-wing SJWs are a bigger problem.
Splitting (also called black-and-white thinking or all-or-nothing thinking) is the failure in a person's thinking to bring together the dichotomy of both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole. It is a common defense mechanism used by many people. The individual tends to think in extremes (i.e., an individual's actions and motivations are all good or all bad with no middle ground).
The concept of splitting was developed by Ronald Fairbairn in his formulation of object relations theory; it begins as the inability of the infant to combine the fulfilling aspects of the parents (the good object) and their unresponsive aspects (the unsatisfying object) into the same individuals, instead seeing the good and bad as separate.
I can't understand the fervent star wars counterjerk. Some people liked the movie, some people didn't. Obviously the people who liked the movie also like eating paint chips. I'm not one to criticize anyone's choice in foods or movies.
This guy knows art. Nevet mind the fact it's built on the same myth structure that has existed in man for thoysands of years and this new one breaks the normal archetypes.
I jusrlt had this conversation with a friend the other day and peeling back the structure behind filns kinda ruins the fun a bit if you're not interested, so eat my pretension instead
It’s like there’s people criticizing the movie for weak reasons (sjws! Nunmales!! Niggers reeeeeeeeeee)
And then there’s legitimate reasons, (the character arcs are disappointing, there’s complete nonsensical character motivations, Luke skywalkers character makes no sense, completely awful cgi, etc.)
There’s a visa versa of people who are really invested in the “representation” and absolutely dumb people who think it’s actually written well.
People conflate both groups because there’s some bleed through and because they’re retarded and everyone is buttmad and no one can get along because it’s the internet and everybody is stupid but me and deserves to die
All these idiots still haven't realised that we all watch star wars for space lasers and space battles and cool scenes with lasers. If anyone thinks star wars is some next level thinkpiece, or anything other than a AAA action space movie, then they aren't particularly clever.
Star Wars was shit. The best part of the whole film was when It ended. Boring as fuck. I hated every second of it. I'm not going to the next one, I'd rather kill myself.
106 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-12-31
I don't give a fuck how much you call your flimsy delusions "enlightenment." There is no amount of ceaseless self-deception that will make you accept the charred hellscape of being a miserable useless destitute fucking junkie piece of shit. You know what you are, and it is deeply ugly on every level.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 Cephaliarch 2017-12-31
You ever read start reading a drama thread about Star Wars or Pokemon or whatever and your eyes just glaze over as you fantasize about giving them a swirlie or wedgie?
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2017-12-31
Thats a soft stance, considering both fandoms are made up largely of pedophiles.
1 DefiningDefinition 2017-12-31
Star Wars fanboys are basically the sci-fi version of bronies and furries.
At least Trekkies idolize characters who actually have sex, even if they, the audience, cannot.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-12-31
Worst kinds of drama tbh
1 Find_Peace4u 2017-12-31
True but people seem to be quick on the trigger when it comes to drama in gamerghazi, Circlebroke, Islam, etc.... and I miss out on the fun portions of it. I have to scrap by with what I've got.
On the flip I guess I should be happy that I don't spend enough time on said subs to find drama in them.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-12-31
Oh no this isn't directed towards you OP. it's just a general PSA I give on every cancer post about this type of drama. I appreciate your hustle famalam.
1 PlvGdm 2017-12-31
People getting butthurt at your comments is way more entertaining than this stale 'drama'. Although even that has started to dwindle a bit off late.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-12-31
Because https://www.reddit.com/r/Drama/comments/7moeyt/i_will_not_yield_to_terrorists/
Lol
1 PlvGdm 2017-12-31
Wow! It's fucking crazy how seriously people take Reddit all in the pursuit to 'win an argument'.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2017-12-31
How did you track that down? In all the years I have been on here I have never gotten involved in the crazy alt games.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-12-31
He wasn't smart lol. Using the same "roasts" and same language and arguing with the same people other than me. You'd have to be blind to not figure out who he is.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2017-12-31
Gotcha, so it was just the effort of tracking it. The long list made me think it was this huge drawn out mission.
1 Find_Peace4u 2017-12-31
What the ever loving fuck? Why?
Can you give me a tl;Dr of this shit?
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-12-31
https://www.reddit.com/r/Drama/comments/7moeyt/comment/drx0xzo?context=3
1 Find_Peace4u 2017-12-31
The best thing about coming here is that there are plenty of reminders that make me go "at least I am not that retarded maybe there's hope for me yet".
1 zahlman 2017-12-31
u srs fak u toasts
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-12-31
On New Year's Eve? Mmmmm
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2017-12-31
Star Wars nerd.
1 pizzashill 2017-12-31
I honestly cringe every time I see someone bitching about a movie or a video game like this.
I cringe because I used to be like this. I unironically called wonder woman "feminist propaganda" during my KIA days and looking back on that just makes me want to off myself.
1 terf_chiropractor 2017-12-31
That was like 6 months ago.
1 pizzashill 2017-12-31
No it was longer than that, well before the movie was released.
1 Ultrashitpost 2017-12-31
So when did it all go so horribly wrong?
1 pizzashill 2017-12-31
Aren't you the guy that claims to be a fascist but doesn't actually know anything about fascism?
1 Ultrashitpost 2017-12-31
no that's Masterlawlz
1 pizzashill 2017-12-31
I think that's you, I believe you think you get people to agree with the "fascist manifest."
Do tell, what exactly is that? Because that seems to conflict with most academic understandings of fascism.
Fascism is a set of emotions, incoherent, irrational. They have no doctrine, whatever allows them to dominate others is "true" as Paxton writes:
1 Ultrashitpost 2017-12-31
I was referring to the text called "The Fascist Manifest" which Mussolini wrote in 1919. Come on pizzashil, you could've just googled that and now you look like a fool.
1 pizzashill 2017-12-31
Really, so let's keep going.
1 Ultrashitpost 2017-12-31
If you read my original point comment, you'd see how i was talking about how people like Berniecrats could easily agree with the points of the fascist manifest (which is the text i was talking about, because it has a concise summary of points that are similar to modern social democracy). This manifest (as a text) does exist, as do the points i was referring to, because they are in that text. You can pick them one by one and sell them to a socdem and they'd be none the wiser, which is the original point i was making, which you would've known if you had read the thread in which i made the comment.
No you do. Even if you were correct, you'd still look like a sad autist because of those unnecessary walls of text.
1 pizzashill 2017-12-31
The text exists alright, it just has no relation to fascism as an ideology. This is my larger point.
Them agreeing with elements of that text does not mean they agree with anything related to fascism.
Fascists have no program, which is why they often load whatever "program" with emotional appeals or things that make people feel good.
And even more so, there's no such thing as export brand fascism. Each fascist movement is very much tailored to the specific culture it grows in. Italian fascists weren't anything like German fascists, for example.
The only thing fascists have in common is the desire for war and conquest of other people, which is why there's never been a fascist international.
1 Ultrashitpost 2017-12-31
oh ok
1 [deleted] 2017-12-31
[deleted]
1 Matues49 2017-12-31
Imagine have Mussolini as one of the founding fathers of your movement. The man couldn't oppress his way out of a paper bag.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-12-31
Lol
1 Ultrashitpost 2017-12-31
Mussolini was pretty good, but he had to work with Italians. Doomed from the start smh
1 GunOfSod 2017-12-31
... And baited.
1 GunOfSod 2017-12-31
Switched ...
1 Spoobit 2017-12-31
Just think how much you'll cringe at the crap you post here in a year or two!
1 pizzashill 2017-12-31
Nah, I only post things I know I can support or things subjective enough to where they can't really bad wrong.
The problem here is that people don't know the difference between "things I don't like" and "things that are not true."
1 NSFW_Jeanne 2017-12-31
That sentence doesn't make sense no matter how many times I re-read it.
1 pizzashill 2017-12-31
What about it doesn't make sense?
1 CirqueDuFuder 2017-12-31
Why are you doing this right wing SJW thing? It just makes the SJW insult even more watered down.
1 GunOfSod 2017-12-31
Because he's better than everyone else.
1 pizzashill 2017-12-31
right-wing SJWs are a problem.
1 AHealthySenseofDread 2017-12-31
Stop trying to make fetch happen.
1 pizzashill 2017-12-31
Right-wing SJWs denying right-wing SJWs exist.
News at 11.
1 AHealthySenseofDread 2017-12-31
I'm not denying they exist, I just think the terminology is retarded.
also, >me being a right wing SJW. hilarious
1 pizzashill 2017-12-31
How is the term retarded? What other term describes people that have all of the same traits tumblr SJWs have except on the opposite side of the spectrum?
1 AHealthySenseofDread 2017-12-31
Of course it's accurate, but it's like "no puppet, no puppet you puppet" levels of weak. Try for something snappier. Like rand robots. or something
1 CirqueDuFuder 2017-12-31
Just stop Pizza. Go to the drawing board again. This is worse than Drumpf.
1 PJmath 2017-12-31
right-wing sjw is how im going to describe myself from now on, thanks
1 da394ba8f4646fabe414 2017-12-31
did KIA ban you?
1 Elite_AI 2017-12-31
It's an established insult.
1 jaredschaffer27 2017-12-31
zoz
1 NSFW_Jeanne 2017-12-31
I mean, wayyyyy back when it originated, it actually was.
There was this whole thing with the creator being into BDSM, and not as a top...
1 darth_stroyer 2017-12-31
So an intellectual then.
1 SmurfPrivilege 2017-12-31
He mentioned it in the context of movies and video games, so I took it to mean his rants were directed at the Gal Gadot movie.
1 zahlman 2017-12-31
"hay guyz look at me I think the correct thoughts now gib praise pls"
1 Uniquestusername99 2017-12-31
But it is though. In so much that any film reflects the current zeitgeist of ideas.
1 SmurfPrivilege 2017-12-31
Wait, are you serious? You were ranting about feminist propaganda within that last year and a half and now you're ranting about about The_Donald?
I'm not trying to join in on the dogpile. I'm genuinely curious about the jump from one toxic culture to another on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Lots of Ghazi posters admitted to this in one of their confession posts.
1 pizzashill 2017-12-31
Not really sure how mocking the Donald is "toxic culture."
1 SmurfPrivilege 2017-12-31
I bet you didn't think KIA was "toxic" when you were actively participating.
1 pizzashill 2017-12-31
No, I knew it was toxic. Again, I fail to see how mocking extremism and mental illness is toxic culture.
What's toxic about that?
1 SmurfPrivilege 2017-12-31
Practically everyone here "mocks" extremism. You're noteworthy because you "rant" angrily about political conservatism. I wouldn't be surprised if you can't see the difference. But I assure you, everyone else can.
1 pizzashill 2017-12-31
I mean, I say things that are factually correct. There's nothing toxic about mocking conservatives and stupid people.
1 SmurfPrivilege 2017-12-31
The defense of pretty much every ideologue.
1 pizzashill 2017-12-31
When have I said something that isn't factually correct?
I constantly have this argument here, yet nobody can ever present that.
1 SmurfPrivilege 2017-12-31
Honestly, I don't follow your /r/drama drama closely enough to meet this challenge. But in general ideologues usually argue with selective use of "facts" and shifting standards of proof. And then challenge others to point out where they were wrong.
The people willing to engage in this framework of discourse will employ an almost identical strategy, complete with citations. The original ideologue will dismiss the sources as biased, link to a wikipedia article for a particular logical fallacy, and trawl through their opponents post history. And on and on, it goes.
You know...drama?
1 pizzashill 2017-12-31
You can that's what they do, but you haven't proven or shwon I'm an "ideologue" on any level other than I mock the Donald and stupid conservatives.
Funny, that sounds a lot like the Donald and conservative America.
1 SmurfPrivilege 2017-12-31
I rest my case.
1 pizzashill 2017-12-31
How does mocking stupid conservatives make one an "ideologue?"
1 SmurfPrivilege 2017-12-31
Final arguments are over. It's now up to the jury to decide.
1 pizzashill 2017-12-31
But you never made an argument.
You've tried to claim mocking stupid people that say absurdly false things makes one an ideologue.
1 SmurfPrivilege 2017-12-31
Correct. I opted to let you make my argument for me.
1 pizzashill 2017-12-31
And again, you've failed to explain how mocking people that say absurdly false things makes one an ideologue.
1 SmurfPrivilege 2017-12-31
Dude. Look at how aggressive you're getting.
I'm not looking to engage in political debate, I wasn't defending TDers, and I'm not the least bit interested in "proving you factually wrong".
I was just curious about your claim that you switched internet teams rather abruptly and though to gain some insight into your background. How old are you? What state/country are you in and what's the predominant culture that you find yourself in? Are you white or nonwhite?
1 pizzashill 2017-12-31
How was I aggressive?
Why make arguments you can't support?
First of all, I never "switched teams" because I don't subscribe to any teams. I view SJWs as a problem, so I spent time discussing SJWs in a community of the like-minded.
Slowly but surely the sub was co-opted by for lack of a better word, right-wing SJWs. And it because obvious at that point right-wing SJWs are a bigger problem.
Florida.
United states.
I grew up in rural America.
White.
1 SmurfPrivilege 2017-12-31
18-22 yo?
1 menvaren 2017-12-31
Is there any doubt?
1 Chromebookbitches 2017-12-31
This is a well known phenomenon in mentally individuals, it's known as splitting.
1 WikiTextBot 2017-12-31
Splitting (psychology)
Splitting (also called black-and-white thinking or all-or-nothing thinking) is the failure in a person's thinking to bring together the dichotomy of both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole. It is a common defense mechanism used by many people. The individual tends to think in extremes (i.e., an individual's actions and motivations are all good or all bad with no middle ground).
The concept of splitting was developed by Ronald Fairbairn in his formulation of object relations theory; it begins as the inability of the infant to combine the fulfilling aspects of the parents (the good object) and their unresponsive aspects (the unsatisfying object) into the same individuals, instead seeing the good and bad as separate.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source | Donate ] Downvote to remove | v0.28
1 Chicup 2017-12-31
So you are saying /u/pizzashill is mentally ill?
Next tell me about water being wet or Oprah being fat.
1 TotesMessenger 2017-12-31
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
1 Matues49 2017-12-31
Skinnyfat nu males hate TLJ because seeing Kylo Ren's shirtless wide bod on the big screen fuels their, already burning, feelings of male inadequacy.
1 ltedt 2017-12-31
https://i.redd.it/mmc6h1y345701.jpg
1 DaYooper 2017-12-31
Haha what the fuck?
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2017-12-31
Basic plot of the new movie.
1 take_a_dumpling 2017-12-31
I can't understand the fervent star wars counterjerk. Some people liked the movie, some people didn't. Obviously the people who liked the movie also like eating paint chips. I'm not one to criticize anyone's choice in foods or movies.
1 Uniquestusername99 2017-12-31
What's there not to understand? If you were emotionally invested in Luke this film is shit.
1 MrUnsmileyMan 2017-12-31
Even Mark Hammill couldn't get emotionally invested in Luke in this film
1 Sloppysloppyjoe 2017-12-31
imagine being emotionally invested in a ficional space soap opera character lmao
it's just a kids movie m8-it's priority is selling halloween costumes and toys not mimicking some Ex Machina-level screenplay.
1 Uniquestusername99 2017-12-31
This guy knows art. Nevet mind the fact it's built on the same myth structure that has existed in man for thoysands of years and this new one breaks the normal archetypes.
I jusrlt had this conversation with a friend the other day and peeling back the structure behind filns kinda ruins the fun a bit if you're not interested, so eat my pretension instead
1 YHofSuburbia 2017-12-31
We get it, you watched a YouTube video """"""essay"""
1 Uniquestusername99 2017-12-31
No I watched 3.
1 Uniquestusername99 2017-12-31
No I watched 3.
1 Uniquestusername99 2017-12-31
No I watched 3.
1 YHofSuburbia 2017-12-31
How many times are you gonna post this, retard?
1 Uniquestusername99 2017-12-31
Probably 4.
1 Uniquestusername99 2017-12-31
Wait no 5.
1 Uniquestusername99 2017-12-31
Maybe 6.
1 ahbslldud 2017-12-31
Yeah, god knows its unrealistic for someone's personality and outlook to change between 17 and old age.
1 Uniquestusername99 2017-12-31
Not arguing the realism or age. There are other reasons to dislike a change of character.
1 Rith2 2017-12-31
It’s like there’s people criticizing the movie for weak reasons (sjws! Nunmales!! Niggers reeeeeeeeeee)
And then there’s legitimate reasons, (the character arcs are disappointing, there’s complete nonsensical character motivations, Luke skywalkers character makes no sense, completely awful cgi, etc.)
There’s a visa versa of people who are really invested in the “representation” and absolutely dumb people who think it’s actually written well.
People conflate both groups because there’s some bleed through and because they’re retarded and everyone is buttmad and no one can get along because it’s the internet and everybody is stupid but me and deserves to die
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2017-12-31
Because Star Wars fans are creeps, and marketing shouldn't be able to pretend that the theater isn't filled with pedos.
1 GayNotQueer 2017-12-31
I have heard more people complain that people didn't like the movie, than people complain about the movie.
1 glmox 2017-12-31
gas everyone who argues about movies on reddit fucking yesterday
1 nmx179 2017-12-31
u/AprilSpektra I'm sorry it makes you cry salty little-girl tears that not enough people like your favorite shitty pathetic movie for losers
1 OfficialBeetroot 2017-12-31
All these idiots still haven't realised that we all watch star wars for space lasers and space battles and cool scenes with lasers. If anyone thinks star wars is some next level thinkpiece, or anything other than a AAA action space movie, then they aren't particularly clever.
1 Time_to_Drink 2017-12-31
Star Wars was shit. The best part of the whole film was when It ended. Boring as fuck. I hated every second of it. I'm not going to the next one, I'd rather kill myself.