And all he really is is "old man yelling at clouds".
Which really begs the question: Why? What point is there in going after Alex Jones if what he says is complete non-sense?
Maybe because there was no real advertising, virtually nobody knows about it, it's nearly exclusively trying to appeal to an American audience which makes it sure to flop internationally, and the most important factor of all: Nobody wants to see it. Nobody against Trump actually wants to watch his story, and nobody in favour of Trump wants to watch a hit piece. This movie appealed to nobody, so nobody saw it.
cultural appropriation
Once again, western absorbed liberals have no idea what culture actually is and instead exclusively focus on the most surface level, vapid markings. These are things like dress, food, dance, music, fashion, etc. These are relatively banal things. Interesting, sure, but hold no real cultural weight.
Meanwhile, when we get into the nitty gritty of culture and dig towards the core, we start to uncover actual cultural identity and value. These are things like familial structures, justice systems, traditions, moral interpretation, etc.
The reality is that leftists are entirely fine with cultural destruction and appropriation, so long as you leave the surface levels alone. It's by far some of the most ignorant and racist things that the left has continually engaged in for many, many decades.
Which is my biggest issue. I'd argue that horror media in general, especially franchises, are the most inconsistent, especially with monster capabilities/limitations.
And I will say, internal consistency can be a hard thing to achieve the longer a franchise goes on, but that's part of the charm of the franchise: the limitations which should breed creativity, not lazy ad hoc inconsistencies.
I generally prefer slow zombies, but consistency is more important.
Of course it won't be good. The point was that even if somehow against all odds they stumble into something good, the people behind it all are still very much pozzed and should be avoided on that basis alone.
I'm not even surprised this is the "defence" they're teaching. It's utterly stupid, and you'd think doctors would know about the dangers of knife wounds and would therefore try to keep their wrists away from a blade unlike the guy in this video that's making it incredibly easy to get his wrists slashed.
Obligatory since every time I see this reposted somewhere, someone will invariably bring up the reason for the image on the right.
Yes, that image is celebrating International Women's Day. No, there's a good chance that isn't the developers of GoY, though a portion are probably going to be involved.
The issue is that Sucker Punch felt the need to virtue signal on IWD. Would they do one on International Men's Day? Could they even point out what day that is?
The issue isn't the women per se, but it's the culture that felt the need to virtue signal. Maybe GoY will be fine. Maybe we'll all be proven wrong. But considering that Sucker Punch are also fine with taking part in a workshop that's exclusively for "girls and non-binary kids, ages 11 to 14", I think it's pretty clear that they're infested.
that she got a joke candidate elected president
Remember, the email leaks around her and Podesta included discussions with media outlets that explicitly told media outlets to focus on Trump because they thought he was a joke, and ignore candidates like Rand Paul and Ben Carson because they saw them as threats to minority and lower economic groups.
They didn't take Trump seriously, and it fucked them because Trump was actually personable compared to career politicians like Hillary.
How "alt history" are we going here? Still relatively realistic but just different historical events, or full blown fantasy as well? Because if it's the latter, there's the Grimnoir trilogy by Larry Correia. But it's very much alt history with outright magic. But the first book takes place in 1930.
His "activism" is to try and enact changes to stifle free speech. To bring about rules that will punish people other than himself.
It's because they want to see people like Johnny get in trouble. They don't support him, they support him getting in trouble. It's entertainment from another's suffering.
Think Chris Chan kinda, except the mental illness isn't as blatant or in-your-face.
That's because people that don't need government don't vote for more government over-reach.
The biggest threat to the establishment is an independent people. People that don't need the government are people who won't vote for more government over-reach. Blocking volunteer aid leaves people dependent on the state.
Coward actually deleted it too. No surprise that Leftists constantly revise history to only show themselves in positive light, and not the pieces of shit they are.
This level of naive idealism is entirely pointless. It will NEVER happen. The establishment might not allow an unmoderated debate, but at least that's feasible debate. Having a mythical "truly neutral moderator" is wishful thinking.
Stop imagining systems and structures that are built around having a central authority figure. Those roles will NEVER be filled by those pure people you want to imagine into existence. It's an impractical fantasy.
And so you rightfully address that as a form of improper decorum within a debate setting. Why are we relying on a third party to make the arguments on behalf of the debaters? If the debaters cannot handle themselves, that is a failure of the debaters.
Also, weren't you the one that suggested the idea of rigid time limits which is far more susceptible to the abuse of Gish Galloping?
"Fact checking" is explicitly antithetical to the nature of a debate though. The whole point is that both sides are meant to argue for their points and against their opponents. That isn't the role of the moderator, it's the role of the people debating.
There's no kind way of sugar-coating it: stop conceding ground.
Hell, both teams get their own moderators. If we're going to treat these farces like trials, why not basically make it akin to clients with their lawyers? Take away the charade, not play along with it.
All methods have flaws, at least that one is mostly fair.
That said, a crucial flaw and one that is easily exploited in a live debate is the use of the gish gallop method of rapid fire questions/accusations/falsehoods that are difficult to both address in a limited timespan, as well as also fit in time for your own speaking points.
But losing the moderators would be a good move. The fact there's even "fact checkers" is even more ludicrous considering that it's basically enshrining the literal idea of politically correct speech. That in and of itself should be called out as basic pro-establishment abuse of power.
I'm sorry Feig, but I thought this film wasn't for us? I thought that this was for the modern audience? How can it be the fault of people who aren't your audience?
These people love to blame everyone else for their own failure. And it's funny because anyone with any talent can recover from a bad original screening. The Thing, The Shining and Blade Runner are all examples of films that flopped in the box office but recovered after the fact. 2016 GB has never and will never recover. It's a bad movie.
And the fact Feig can't let it go only strengthens the idea that it was meant to be a statement. So when he says:
“It turned the movie into a political statement, as if to say: ‘If you’re pro-women, you’re going to go see this. If you’re not, then …’ I didn’t think it mattered at all that the main characters were women, but people brought a lot of baggage.”
his implication that this film isn't a statement just can't be taken seriously. Because it's clear that it was very much a statement since it still needs to be defended instead of just accepted as a loss.
True, though I think Reddit, Youtube, Facebook and Tiktok are the worst offenders by a large margin.
I always love how forced the whole "sex work is empowering group" is, because it's not even that they try to force the message with others, but with themselves too.
Ask any woman that's "sex worker positive" if they'd date a partner that regularly had sex with a prostitute and just wait for all the excuses they'd provide. They don't think it's normal, they think it's gross but want to "support the sistas" or some shit like that. Because as per usual, it's all about appearances, not about substantive beliefs. And the reality is that if sex work was normal, you'd have zero problem if your partner bought sex, but we all know that they do have a problem with that.
I don't even think it's real. If it reaches the front page of a site like Reddit, it's almost certainly fake/manufactured/manipulated/etc, where some company/organisation is pushing a post with a pre-approved message for other users to see and uncritically accept as what's popular (even though it's propped up almost entirely by bots).
I still believe with 100% conviction in the "Conspiracy Conspiracy", which is the deliberate sharing and proliferation of explicitly false conspiracy theories to help disguise, hide in plain site, or discredit other legitimate conspiracies that would otherwise easily and rightfully earn severe pushback.