The ever present Revolution
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (40)
sorted by:
People are oversensitive, hysterical, and stupid.
Yeah, they were moving slowly and carefully, and now everything is present so they can't use those tricks anymore.
the problem is quality. everything else is a deflection.
put the original star trek or even TNG on next to STD or Lower Decks, and you can the difference in quality of the storytelling, the humor, etc. the effects aren't as good, usually, but the storytelling is usually on point in the older series, even if you find the message distasteful. It's because the new crop of writers, directors, actors, etc. don't really understand the art of storytelling, they only understand the message they want to push, and so that's what they focus on, banging away with a cargo cult's understanding and an ideologue's fervor.
Meanwhile, those who know what's going on but support the message do their damnest to deflect from the stark reality that western entertainment is in a death spiral.
It's the same reason they go after anime, again, quality is the problem.
Discovery I'll give you.
But when I gave Lower Decks a fair shot, though I hated the first two episodes...it picked up surprisingly well after that.
I wound up watching all 30 episodes from the first three seasons before we had to cut Paramount Plus to save some money. I found it significantly more entertaining than I expected--it's not as good as TNG or DS9 or even Voyager or Enterprise, no, but it was the best NuTrek had to offer. It felt like an affectionate self-parody.
Then it went woke in season 4, so it ended up counting anyway. We dropped it at the right time.
yeah...orville did the same thing...I stopped watching because i dropped netflix, and I never watch tv on tv anymore, but the first two seasons were legitimately good, probably because they had actually star trek alum writing episodes, then it apparently just went to shit after that...
Yep, had me till the 4th paragraph.
So the retard admits they’re neopuritan authoritarians? If “everything is present” and something innocuous is deemed evil, then the problem is you, not Johnny Cash.
what the fuck do troon wanna-be anarchists have to do with puritanism and authoritarianism?
you really think your enemy is modest Christian Hitler?
Imagine thinking they’re actually anarchists😂. Troons are heavily religious and heavily authoritarian. Also, fun fact, Hitler, like many others, didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ, he was about as Christian as a Jew.
Now you've done it, mentioning the glorious Führer in the same sentence as 'Jew'. RIP poor Ahaus.
buh
"I SAY: MY FEELING AS A CHRISTIAN POINTS ME TO MY LORD AND SAVIOUR AS A FIGHTER. IT POINTS ME TO THE MAN WHO ONCE IN LONELINESS, SURROUNDED ONLY BY A FEW FOLLOWERS, RECOGNIZED THESE JEWS FOR WHAT THEY WERE AND SUMMONED MEN TO THE FIGHT AGAINST THEM AND WHO, GOD'S TRUTH! WAS GREATEST NOT AS SUFFERER BUT AS FIGHTER.
In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before - the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross"
Not the person you were responding to, so I'll only address the first part.
Yes, troons are extremely religious. They rabidly believe in leftism, viciously defend it even when it's contradicted by facts or logic, attack everyone they consider heretics or apostates to their doctrine, and blindly follow the Word of their religious thought leaders every time new commandments are dictated, even when these new marching orders directly oppose previous directives.
If that is not a religious zealot, then I don't know what is.
Amazing that a guy running for office in a country that was 95% Christian at the time would speak words in favor of Christianity. Of course, he said different things in private.
And of course, this makes little sense. Hitler didn't like Jews who had converted to Christianity either. So how can he cite those "followers" of Jesus as examples? They were ethnically Jewish, after all, like Jesus himself.
Puritanism as used is a broader term, not specifically about the christian denomination. And authoritarianism is leftism, it is what the troons act in service of - using government force to compel behavior.
if you broaden it so much that it applies to literal hedonists then it has lost all meaning.
When used in broader terms, it is in reference of the purity spiral, not the morality of whatever they are spiraling over.
The slang use is referring to social authoritarianism.
Well, it was a slur from the very beginning, so you're right about that. And Puritans were actually quite nice and forgiving people... mostly.
Is there a difference between using government force to impose gay pornography and transgender grooming on children vs. using government force to protect them from it?
Preferably the parents would be involved first, and government would only be involved at lowest levels starting with actual criminal behavior.
I have a feeling I can guess his stance on gay porn comics in middle school libraries.
Listen, if we ban material that sexualizes children, we're no better than the progressives. This has to be our rallying cry or we'll lose the terminally online loser demographic!
Not sure if it's downvoted because people mistook the sarcasm for serialness, or if people don't like the barb at so called anime.
In the past, famous people such as writers, actors, athletes and musicians had a private life that largely WAS private. Very rarely would you hear their unfiltered political opinions. You just saw their art and judged them by that alone. If you knew anything more than that, you were either a biographer or a creepy worshipper/stalker figure.
The modern internet with social media and the terminally online who use it allows common people who otherwise wouldn't know shit about what they're "learning" to invasively pry into not only certain celebs' current personal lives, but their past too.
No, and neither did you before someone else terminally online decided to bring it up every single fucking time that person gets mentioned despite it happening decades ago. Knock it the fuck off.
It's something marxists have been working a long time on, when Gramsci saw people were actually happy with capitalism and it didn't fall off naturally as stageism described, he proposed commies should start pestering people in private spaces, turn private into public
If that's not hysterical and stupid, I don't know what is. "Aaaah, I am suddenly aware of the past, even though it's the present! Quick, rewrite those old children's books and expunge the records of the originals!"
I'm sure the pub is happy to be free of his bizarre rants, but I feel sorry for that bastard's poor spawn, they'll have decades of his weeping and bloviating to look forward to
Or, and here's a possibility. Things used to move a lot slower. Far more carefully.
Now it's an ever present today that cannot change, refuses to change, so everything else must instead change to suit today.
It's entirely backwards.
Of course it's because people (modern leftists) are oversensitive, hysterical and stupid: if the people of yesteryear were as sensitive as you are, they would already have added these disclaimers years ago.
As if no one read Balzac or Tolstoy after the 19th century? Or Steinbeck after 1940?
I get this guy's point that the digital distribution of TV shows and movies is a recent phenomenon, but so are TV shows themselves. He himself looks old enough to have grown up with the advent of TV.
Famously, no one ever read Shakespeare, I mean Emilia Bassano, after 1616.
Imagine you go to a pub to have a few pints and relax and you have this tankie waste your time by being a pretentious faggot.
Fuck, this tankie already wasted our time with the long winded post
Funny -- somehow when we watched old stuff in the '80s and '90s and '00s and '10s, nobody needed warnings.
But now it's on streaming sites available on demand 24/7 so we need warnings?
No.
The date of production and release would be enough. Trigger Warnings are opinion based and biased.
The opposite of this guy's arguement could also be true. Having all media of all eras thrown together keeps us more in touch with our cultural past and it's only natural to want to keep some of it around longer than others. It helps us second guess stupid ideas.
I want all of Scooby Doo preserved, even if Scrappy is annoying
I can live with that. I was watching TeamFourStar's commentary over their DBZA episodes on the FourStarBento channel, and on two occasions in early episodes, a character said "retarded," to which Nick "Lanipator" Landis simply responded "2008!"
No, I don't have a problem with the word. To do so is retarded. I simply use this as an example.
Parenthood. Thisan himself is a victim and lacks the balls to be a man and use the word fatherhood.
But people can just recognize that not everything was created yesterday and understand historical context. This guy has really not made a compelling argument for why trigger warnings are necessary.
True, it used to be that the streets of San Francisco weren't covered in human feces, that elevators in black people's apartments didn't smell of urine, that it wasn't normal to have every railstation west of East Asia be the plaything of drug addicts and illegal immigrants.
I agree with the premise but disagree with the conclusion.
This is prefaced by three sophisms: Society progresses in a linear manner, America is spearheading said progress and society cannot change further
Anyone on tetherhooks for this to morph into '..and that's why we need age restrictions on older content based on how long ago it was made rather than the viewer'. Just a guess but the ruminations I see on how much more wanted old content is over new stuff isn't lost on these culture vultures.