Sign In

moviefreakedmind

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
22-Jul-2014
Last activity
13-Nov-2018
Posts
11887

Post History

Post
#1253205
Topic
open letter by Collipso
Time

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Comments like that weren’t being made by most in the politics thread. Jay broke his own rules on personal attacks and insults and then deleted the thread almost immediately after people started calling him out on it.

I told dahmage he was acting like an ass (and he was) for doing exactly what everyone in the thread was warned not to do repeatedly over the course of months, if not years.

You didn’t. You called him an ass for pointing out in one word how senseless your political commentary was. No one ever has been told not to use one-word responses to call someone out. So that’s a rule you made up on the spot.

As I’ve said elsewhere, rather than losing my cool, I probably should’ve just banned him for failing to heed previous warnings, in which case we’d be in the same situation (“Jay’s abusing his powers blah blah blah”), but at least I wouldn’t have “broken my own rules”.

Of course we’d have said that you were abusing your power because you would’ve banned someone who didn’t even break the rules and that you were obviously just mad at because he was being “snarky”, as you like to say, towards your political opinion. If snark is against the rules then you would’ve had to have banned yourself a million times before, so if you’re saying respectfulness is a rule then it’s just another of the many rules that you yourself are not beholden to.

Post
#1252206
Topic
The deletion of the political threads.
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

For banning someone who posted up an image regarding paedophilia, bestiality and religious intolerance (and IIRC was also racist?), and who also kicked off at the mods and then re-posted the offending image - I’ve no qualms about my actions there.

Just so everyone knows what oojason is referring to here. It image in question was one of a westboro baptists protester, holding up offensive signs. I was not posting it condone, or agree with what they do or condone or approve of paedophilia, bestiality, religious intolerance, racism, or homophobia. I think the westbor baptists are the scum of the earth. I absolutely hate what they do. oojason knowing me as long as he did, should known that would not approve of those things or the westboro baptists. I posted the pic to show that not all peaceful protesters are good people. I thought I had made that clear in the initial post. I thought, if the post was read in the contexts of the posts that had come before and with the accompanying text with the pic, that my reasons and intentions were clear. But turned out it was not. I made more clear my reason for posting the pic later on, but it was not done fast enough to suit oojason.

Oojason’s referring to Haseo and the image which got him banned.

Actually I think he’s talking about jediknightsuzini.

Post
#1252203
Topic
Ask the trans woman (aka interrogate the trans woman)
Time

Trident said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Uh, OK this is getting too creepy. I’m done here.

It gets a little hot on the understanding department and it blows your mind? Good God. What a coward.

No. It’s creepy that you’re talking about pedophilia being a “deep love for kids.” Not wanting to be involved in that conversation does not make me a coward.

Post
#1252171
Topic
Ask the trans woman (aka interrogate the trans woman)
Time

pleasehello said:

But judging by the reactions, I don’t think anyone is really even willing to consider the perfectly reasonable possibility that Trident is putting forth: that these two completely different phenomena could both be the result of the physical wiring of someone’s brain.

It’s a bad analogy. It’d be better to compare it to people with a desire to torture or hurt people or something like that.

Post
#1252169
Topic
Ask the trans woman (aka interrogate the trans woman)
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

What is SSA? And fuck any attempt to compare or link LGBT orientations to pedophilia. I have no tolerance for that.

Why? He’s not linking them on a moral level, he’s linking them on a psychological level. Clearly, there’s a difference. Both are attractions that are not evolutionary beneficial (neither can lead to procreation if pursued).

Child rape actually can and does lead to procreation. Your church demands that impregnated children not be allowed to terminate those life-threatening pregnancies. So you’re totally wrong there.

Homosexuality at this point is evolutionarily beneficial since it won’t contribute to overpopulation (which I’m assuming you pretend is a myth). Plus gay couples can adopt and raise children that are orphans, unwanted, or wards of the state.

Are we basing whether or not something is a disorder on whether or not it is “moral” in and of itself? That’s seems awfully arbitrary to me.

I’m basing it on whether or not it has negative consequences. If something has no negative consequences then I have no problem with it.

Post
#1252021
Topic
Would Lucasfilm have made new SW films with or without Disney?
Time

DominicCobb said:

Anakin Starkiller said:

Say Lucas had handed over his company to Kathleen Kennedy, but without selling it to Disney. Would things still have played out roughly the same? Are Disney basically just funding them (and forcing to release Solo in May)? Or would there actually be a significant difference? Maybe the sequel trilogy but no spinoffs?

From what I understand Solo was being developed by Lawrence Kasdan even before the Disney buyout, and Lucas had at one point planned to write/direct Episode VII himself. So it’s possible that in terms of the kinds of films we’re seeing (sequels, spin-offs) things would be the same, but other things would be quite different I’m sure (who’s making the films, when they’re being released, etc.).

I’m pretty sure that Lucas was also brainstorming ideas for the Death Star plans backstory before he sold to Disney, which was the premise for Rogue One.

Post
#1252020
Topic
Random Thoughts
Time

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

They always go after people for “pretentiousness” and so does their audience.

But they aren’t being pretentious. Of course they believe in their own interpretations about a film, but they aren’t claiming that their opinions should matter to you. And remember that time they called other YouTube critics “pricks”? In the next episode they bring up how many people got mad at them and Rich blatantly says “I’m a prick.”

They do claim that people who don’t hold their opinions are stupid and simple-minded. That’s pretentiousness in my book.

And to bring up the whole audience issue, I don’t think their fanbase has nearly as many blind followers as you seem to believe there are. People repeating jokes or generally agreeing is perfectly normal.

Judging by RLM fans’ willingness to love or hate a film based entirely on the RLM stance without even having seen it, I’d definitely disagree with you. You yourself have done that on this very forum.