logo Sign In

What's with Roger Ebert and... sex... recently? — Page 4

Author
Time
Post link

Ziggy Stardust said:

He thinks he's the best in the world, when actually he sucks at what he does.

Both statements are wrong. ;)

Author
Time
Post link

Oh yeah... well... what are the lyrics of Like A Prayer all about if they aren't about oral sex...yeah?

Author
Time
Post link

twooffour said:

Mrebo said:

 

twooffour said:

For those too thick to get it - this is just another instance where I'm not the one starting to post off-topic personal bullshit in someone's thread ;)

What twooffour started with:

twooffour said:

Xhonzi, you've been a weirdo since I first read your posts about raising OT children, and you're still one now.

If you wanna read crazy perverted sex fantasies into a few sardonic remarks about a topic made fun of all the god damn time, please continue to do so. Whatever floats your boat.

Now explained as:

twooffour said:

Yea, that was a few personal jabs in the context of an on-topic response. You just jump in randomly with nothing more to say than "oh this mean twofour, this mean twofour, he so annoying please go away, clownpicture".

Calling names and being dismissive is not the same as being on topic, twooffour. Your first post boils down to "You're a weirdo. You're wrong. Whatever."

That's not responsive. Saying, 'it's not perverted, it's sardonic' is not an argument. It's just a way of saying, 'you're wrong and I'm right' and then you use that to say, 'so that's why I get to call you names.' And we've seen this from you time and again.

And then you claim you didn't start off-topic personal nonsense...except for calling into question one of xhonzi's approaches to parenting, of course.

I agree with CP3S that a person should be banned if they constantly drag the forums down.

Yes, I was rather appealing to common sense than any hard "logic", but then, common sense is the name of the game here, and I don't see what more is required.

A movie critic makes a few sardonic remarks about chaste romance in a few movies (also described as having bland romance by other people who've seen them).
A lot of people do that.
It's also connected to issues like parental guidance and pandering to different target audiences while making bucks, so that's an additional reason for it to be the butt of a lot of jokes.

Pretending to be a sex-obsessed maniac in contexts like that (I don't even have to reference the Filthy Critic for that), is a very common device, too.


So I'd expect anyone who's kinda been watching movies, participated on forums, or read through some internet reviews, to catch that sort of thing - or at the very least, consider the high probability that IT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN THAT SERIOUS.

But this one, no, "he mentions sex so it must be genuine obsession, what else could it be??"
Well, common sense and basic experience says that it very well may have been humor. Roger Ebert is heterosexual, and probably doesn't mind boobs, and you don't need more of a "true core" for it than that.

What "arguments" do I need to make in addition to that? It's just common sense. Insisting on sex obsession despite all of that is weird and hilarious. Wanna argue with that?



As for the other issue, again, there's a huge difference between making a few provoking remarks (or references to earlier threads) BEFORE PROCEEDING TO MAKE A POINT ON TOPIC, and just jumping in to say how much a given user suxx0rs without caring about the topic, or what said user had to say about it.

And if you can't see the obvious difference, then you're lost.
Sorry, I'll be more careful to point out that "you were the first to derail this thread by making a post BUILT SOLELY AROUND FLAMING A USER", so you won't have to make any effort to understand what should go without saying for anyone with half a brain.

"You're a weirdo. You're wrong. Whatever."


It wasn't phrased as an ad hominem. And yes, insisting on reading sex obsession into what most probably (and very often) is hyperbolic humor, is pretty weird.

 

xhonzi was clearly being sardonic. You're the one reading serious accusations of perversity into it (xhonzi merely raised the possibility that Ebert wants to see boobs). You don't have to agree, but wanting to see more sex in several family-friendly PG-13 movies is odd. This is common sense. Now I get to call you a fool.

Was Ebert just being sardonic about the topic of sex in several family-friendly movies? It's certainly a possibility. But that doesn't make it "common sense." Nor a "high probability." That others have addressed this topic has nothing to do with Ebert in the context of several reviews of family-friendly movies. That you want to give Ebert the benefit of the doubt is nice of ya, but not common sense.

You don't have to use impeccable logic, though your insistence that 'common sense is the name of the game' is just silly as common sense can mean whatever the speaker insists it means. What you failed to consider in this thread is 'the high probability that xhonzi MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN THAT SERIOUS.' He raised a possibility. You raised a competing possibility and called xhonzi names and dismissed his sardonic observation.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
Post link

Ziggy Stardust said:

2/4 is like Madonna.

He thinks he's the best in the world, when actually he sucks at what he does.

You better apologize to Madonna.  NOW.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

twooffour said:


Maybe you should look up the world troll on the interwebs before waving it around.
You said yourself it gets used too lightly these days, but now you're doing that very thing yourself.

This is my opinion:

You are a troll.

Since you always demand explanations for opinions, I will now give you one:

The reason you come here is to argue with people.  You call it "discussion," but a normal person doesn't use the language and name-calling you use unless they really want a fight, not a discussion.  In other words, you throw shit out (couched in pseudo-intellectual nonsense) to make people angry and argue with you.  Just like a fisherman throws out a net to troll for fish, you throw out your net of insanity to troll for responses.

That is the internet definition of troll.  And you, my not-friend, are it.

Author
Time
Post link

Bingowings said:

Oh yeah... well... what are the lyrics of Like A Prayer all about if they aren't about oral sex...yeah?

Um...a black Jesus statue coming to life?

Am i remembering the video correctly?

Author
Time
Post link

That's the video and it wasn't even Jesus.

The lyrics are clearly about blow jobs.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Mrebo said:

xhonzi was clearly being sardonic.

Ah, well, came off differently.


You're the one reading serious accusations of perversity into it (xhonzi merely raised the possibility that Ebert wants to see boobs).


No, not merely raised a possibility, but clearly acted as if this was the most sensible conclusion.
But doesn't matter since he was joking, right?

You don't have to agree, but wanting to see more sex in several family-friendly PG-13 movies is odd.


Right?

 

 

Was Ebert just being sardonic about the topic of sex in several family-friendly movies? It's certainly a possibility. But that doesn't make it "common sense." Nor a "high probability." That others have addressed this topic has nothing to do with Ebert in the context of several reviews of family-friendly movies. That you want to give Ebert the benefit of the doubt is nice of ya, but not common sense.



Actually it is, if you have common sense, and if you'd have read my previous post.
Jokes like this are made CONSTANTLY, by A LOT OF PEOPLE. Most of whom probably wouldn't mind boobs, but play up their hypersexuality for purpose. It's just a common trope.

So what's the more likely conclusion, that he employed that device, or that one of the most well-known critics read by a wide audience would accidentally slip his sexual fantasies about sex in children's movies in reviews read by a wide audience?

 

 

What you failed to consider in this thread is 'the high probability that xhonzi MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN THAT SERIOUS.' He raised a possibility. You raised a competing possibility and called xhonzi names and dismissed his sardonic observation.




"I stopped reading Ebert years ago, but what's happened to the man?  He seems to be very upset that PG-13 ratings are standing between him and seeing famous boobs."

"I don't recall him being so fixated back when I used to read him more regularly.  It was something new- I found it odd.  I thought some people here might appreciate the oddity."

You know what, doesn't seem like sarcasm to me. It reads like someone's genuinely confused by Ebert's "recent oddity".
I think you're just saying he was being sardonic so you can have a point against me.

That's what it READS like, mind you - now compare
"they grow close, but only PG-13 close, because Marvel has apparently determined that fanboys find sex to be icky."
A jab at the ones responsible, plus pointing out a rather amusing irony.

"One alien element has become almost traditional. Ever since "Alien," we've had the phenomenon of aliens who unfold to reveal wicked inner parts. The aliens here have chest cavities that open to extrude three-fingered hands, slimy with mucus. One shudders to envision the use of these limbs during sex. On their home world, there must be fortunes to be made in opening manicure shops."

Now that was fucking serious. I now certainly respect the "possibility" that he may have issues. Alien chest cavities?
I mean, sure, he could've been joking there, but he could also have been serious! We have to consider all possibilities, and common sense is like, individual and stuff!

Gimme a break...

 

Author
Time
Post link

TV's Frink said:

Since you always demand explanations for opinions, I will now give you one:

Yes, accusations require explanations.
Glad you've realized that finally, albeit grudgingly.


The reason you come here is to argue with people.  You call it "discussion," but a normal person doesn't use the language and name-calling you use unless they really want a fight, not a discussion.

May I ask you were you took that absurd premise from?

Discussion = doesn't necessarily mean gentle and respectful.
If Matt thinks that Bob posted something that's stupid, or makes no sense, he can reply to it while saying out loudly what he thinks of Bob's post. It's stupid, Bob's being ridiculous, a "clown", the conclusion is wrong, or based on a fallacy, etc. etc.

All that is part of "discussion", even it takes a nasty (or in this case, just blunt and respectless) tone - the only qualifier being that Matt cares to make his points, and means them honestly, out of genuine objection to Bob's posts.

And if you can't keep that apart from either
1) pretending to have an objection, or a point, while just looking for a fight
2) jumping in without any point, or conclusion, just tossing accusations and insults (the kind of stuff you're doing, so I guess you're a troll then),

then you clearly haven't thought things through, and I do NOT mean this in a gentle or respectful manner.


In other words, you throw shit out (couched in pseudo-intellectual nonsense)

When I see you debunk a single point of mine as pseudo-intellectual or fallacious, I might start taking you a bit more seriously.


to make people angry and argue with you.

No.
I sometimes expect them to get upset or even "angry", but that is still within the boundaries of "discussion".

It only becomes trolling when the actual expressed position is dishonest and faked, rather than being genuine.

When you've learned to tell things apart from each other, you may come back.

Author
Time
Post link

Oh, btw, Frink and CP3S came into this thread with personal attacks (=posts entirely comprised of personal attacks). Now we've got a fight. Heh.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

[snip]

Nope. Still a troll.

*stabs self in eye*

That's probably as close as one can come to capitulation without actually having to pronounce "oops, I guess I fucked up".

No worries, though - you've got it across.

Author
Time
Post link

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

[snip]

Nope. Still a troll.

*stabs self in eye*

Self says :

PM está excesivamente organizada y se basa en gran medida en una ineficiente burocracia absurda.

BANG!

Author
Time
Post link

Mit, diesem Herz hab ich, die Macht,   eure Augenliderr, zu, erpressen...

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

twooffour said:

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

[snip]

Nope. Still a troll.

*stabs self in eye*

That's probably as close as one can come to capitulation without actually having to pronounce "oops, I guess I fucked up".

No worries, though - you've got it across.

Or maybe I don't feel like wading through your usual bullshit?

*stabs out other eye*

Author
Time
Post link

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

[snip]

Nope. Still a troll.

*stabs self in eye*

That's probably as close as one can come to capitulation without actually having to pronounce "oops, I guess I fucked up".

No worries, though - you've got it across.

Or maybe I don't feel like wading through your usual bullshit?

*stabs out other eye*

I was wrong. This is even closer.

Author
Time
Post link

twooffour said:


Actually it is, if you have common sense, and if you'd have read my previous post.
Jokes like this are made CONSTANTLY, by A LOT OF PEOPLE. Most of whom probably wouldn't mind boobs, but play up their hypersexuality for purpose. It's just a common trope.

You're a common trope. I'm not denying such jokes are made often by lots of people. I'm saying, 'so what.'

So what's the more likely conclusion, that he employed that device, or that one of the most well-known critics read by a wide audience would accidentally slip his sexual fantasies about sex in children's movies in reviews read by a wide audience?

I don't think it's accidental.

You know what, doesn't seem like sarcasm to me. It reads like someone's genuinely confused by Ebert's "recent oddity".

I think you're just saying he was being sardonic so you can have a point against me.

I was mocking your line of reasoning. I assure you I have no concern with winning points against you. A picture of a dancing clown wins points against you.

Fink has you pegged.

But I don't know what to do with those tossed salads and scrambled eggs.


The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
Post link

I was mocking your line of reasoning


Ah, that's even lamer.
So basically, it's obvious from Ebert's remarks that he was joking, while it was obvious from xhonzi's that he wasn't.
Xhonzi missed something obvious, and I caught on to something obvious.

So much for your clever "mockery".


Author
Time
Post link

If Roger Ebert really did have sex with a movie, the result would probably be twooffour.

Author
Time
Post link

twooffour said:

xhonzi missed something obvious, and I caught on to something obvious.

Vice versa.

The blue elephant in the room.