CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Western Society, Pop Culture, and the Cacophony of Social Media
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Western Society, Pop Culture, and the Cacophony of Social Media

post #1 of 4682
Thread Starter 
I wanted to start with something strong, but I'm at work and don't have time to really say anything substantial. Basically this is meant to be something of a catch-all for us to express how our political and social lives / beliefs intersect with the entertainment media we consume and how we react to new ideas, debates, etc.

This is a straight up melee thread, so go HAM as the young kids say these days (I think they still say that).
post #2 of 4682
I'm definitely a liberal-minded individual, but I'm not going to go out of my way to crucify a filmmaker if they may have a shitty message in their films I do still believe in freedom of speech and that people have the right to produce anything they want, so long as it doesn't actually hurt anyone. However, the Constitution works both ways we all reserve the right to dissect, criticize and ultimately dismiss works that we find problematic. That and, if something stinks, it stinks. And that too, works both ways.

So does my personal politics get in the way of my media consumption. Not really. I think there is a difference between willing to reflect on a film, and getting on your moral high-horse and shouting down anyone who disagrees with you.
post #3 of 4682
For me, it's become less about the actual piece that offended as opposed to how the involved/offended parties conduct themselves.

The joke at the end of Kingsman certainly struck a nerve, but I was happily considering my thoughts on it. But Vaughn's silly response to the predictable uproar (relative) online is great in the way it only made him come off worse.

That stuff kinda fascinates me at the moment.
post #4 of 4682
Insofar as I have an interest in understanding others, works of art whose politics or theology I disagree with are often worth viewing.

Take the Omen films, for example. Here's a world where the Devil has the ability to arrange natural accidents, wild animal attacks, and lethal breakdowns in machinery, but he does so in order to sneak his chosen agent into human politics. Because the corridors of power are so pristine and unsullied, and now the sanctity of the ruling class is threatened by Satan's gymnastic attempts to infiltrate it all. That's amazing. Satan and the natural world and all of technology, versus God and the wealthy and the politically connected. I want to know what church the screenwriter went to as a child.

I'm actually more averse to seeing politics that I agree with in film, perhaps because it has to really abandon subtlety and hit the audience over the head for me to notice it. Jurassic Park 3 is insulting dogshit. I've hated it since I saw it opening night, and I'll hate it until I return to the oblivion from whence I came. It's a movie where the dinosaurs are there solely to exercise the screenwriter's moral judgement. A bunch of people get eaten for having guns. One asshole is carried away after Sam Neill condemns him for attempted theft, only to be resurrected when Neill forgives him later. This is the context for understanding how one guy gets eaten for the crime of being a stepfather. Fuck this movie, I hates it forever.
Edited by Reasor - 3/1/15 at 2:18pm
post #5 of 4682
Never seen such PASSION directed towards Jurassic Park 3!
post #6 of 4682

I liked it because it had terror-dactyles.

post #7 of 4682
Like I said in the Kingsman thread I see a lot of the recent cultural controversies (that one, 50 Shades, gamergate, 'SJWs', MRAs, general call out culture etc) as branches of a larger phenomenon that's been bubbling under the surface for quite a while, and seems to be breaking into the mainstream in various ways.

I've been seeing a trend towards a kind of dogmatic, reactionary tribalism from all over the political spectrum, and it's getting pushed along and escalated by social media (especially Twitter, almost by definition the worst possible arena for political discussion) as well as clickbaity articles that directly pander to that insular us vs them mentality, and pop culture seems to have become the main battleground for this.

We're almost programmed to hate politicians on principal, but social media shows what a clusterfuck you get when you have politics without politicians. It's Hashtag Politics: you can come up with a catchy name and call it a movement, but they're movements with no figureheads, no manifesto, no set boundaries on ideology or behaviour.

The labels are so poorly defined they're almost meaningless, but so long as people can tweet a hashtag and feel like they're part of a team, or tweet *against* a hashtag and feel like a blow has been struck for something, it *seems* real even though it's just a gunfight in a hall of mirrors.

You might think I'm just slagging off 'gamergate' there, which I am, but I also think gamergate and MRAs are an overreaction to something that is also a problem, which is how the progressive left seem to be evolving into the platform of bitter ideological puritans.

Even though I broadly agree with most of the ideals, I see an obsession with pointing fingers, assigning blame and taking others down a peg or two that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It feels like certain parties take sound theories and ideals and are twisting them into an excuse to purge or shame into oblivion all things remotely 'problematic', free speech and artistic expression be damned.

Again, I'm not saying those kind of critiques can't often be useful or justified, but that mentality left unchecked is what leads to 'call out culture’ - twitter mob justice etc that can do a lot of harm on an individual level in the name of some nebulous greater good (the delightful Jon Ronson has just put a book out about this, though I haven’t read it yet).

When people see this happening and see it as unjust it puts them on the defensive, and people on the defensive are often quick to see the flaws in their perceived attackers and not so quick to see them in those they’re intentionally or unintentionally aligning themselves with. That's how shit like gamergate and the MRAs end up thriving, because they welcome with open arms confused young people who feel alienated and attacked. The scene is set for an ugly backlash.

TL;DR: social media politics is a big pile o' shite.
post #8 of 4682

    While I thought having Obama being in on the villains plan and then have his head blown off in The Kingsman a tad off putting, it didn't hurt my enjoyment of the movie. The movie so stylized and over the top, it would be making a mountain out of a tiny mole hill to get offended by it.

post #9 of 4682
I'm very apolitical. I lean towards small gvt. I'm very mistrusting of people that want a ton of power. I can honestly say that my deep love of the X-Files since my teen years has probably nurtured my anti-authority and conspiracy theory attitudes.
post #10 of 4682

I've noticed a trend towards people either skimming posts on Social Media or reading one or two sentences and going ballistic with a Wall O word response.

 

It's happened to me several times on CHUD  over the years. At first I thought the problem was me; that I wasn't articulating my thoughts well enough. But re-reading my own posts, I concluded that there are people with serious reading comprehension problems on the Internet, who also KNOW they are right about everything. I don't think this is a political thing per se but it most often manifests with political or social issues.

post #11 of 4682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
 

I've noticed a trend towards people either skimming posts on Social Media or reading one or two sentences and going ballistic with a Wall O word response.

 

Listen, I didn't read all of your post, but it seriously outrages me. I wrote a 2000 word response, which was then lost when my laptop finally lost power. Luckily, I saved my screed. Here it follows.

 

Quote:
 

I come before you tonight as a candidate for the Vice Presidency and as a man whose honesty and -- and integrity has been questioned.

Now, the usual political thing to do when charges are made against you is to either ignore them or to deny them without giving details. I believe we've had enough of that in the United States, particularly with the present Administration in Washington, D.C. To me the office of the Vice Presidency of the United States is a great office, and I feel that the people have got to have confidence in the integrity of the men who run for that office and who might obtain it.

 

I have a theory, too, that the best and only answer to a smear or to an honest misunderstanding of the facts is to tell the truth. And that's why I'm here tonight. I want to tell you my side of the case. I'm sure that you have read the charge, and you've heard it, that I, Senator Nixon, took 18,000 dollars from a group of my supporters.

 

Now, was that wrong? And let me say that it was wrong. I'm saying, incidentally, that it was wrong, not just illegal, because it isn't a question of whether it was legal or illegal, that isn't enough. The question is, was it morally wrong? I say that it was morally wrong -- if any of that 18,000 dollars went to Senator Nixon, for my personal use. I say that it was morally wrong if it was secretly given and secretly handled. And I say that it was morally wrong if any of the contributors got special favors for the contributions that they made.

 

And now to answer those questions let me say this: Not one cent of the 18,000 dollars or any other money of that type ever went to me for my personal use. Every penny of it was used to pay for political expenses that I did not think should be charged to the taxpayers of the United States.  It was not a secret fund. As a matter of  fact, when I was on "Meet the Press" -- some of you may have seen it last Sunday -- Peter Edson came up to me after the program, and he said, "Dick, what about this "fund" we hear about?" And I said, "Well, there's no secret about it. Go out and see Dana Smith who was the administrator of the fund." And I gave him [Edson] his [Smith's] address. And I said you will find that the purpose of the fund simply was to defray political expenses that I did not feel should be charged to the Government.

 

And third, let me point out -- and I want to make this particularly clear -- that no contributor to this fund, no contributor to any of my campaigns, has ever received any consideration that he would not have received as an ordinary constituent. I just don't believe in that, and I can say that never, while I have been in the Senate of the United States, as far as the people that contributed to this fund are concerned, have I made a telephone call for them to an agency, or have I gone down to an agency in their behalf. And the records will show that, the records which are in the hands of the administration.

 

Well, then, some of you will say, and rightly, "Well, what did you use the fund for, Senator?" "Why did you have to have it?" Let me tell you in just a word how a Senate office operates. First of all, a Senator gets 15,000 dollars a year in salary. He gets enough money to pay for one trip a year -- a round trip, that is -- for himself and his family between his home and Washington, D.C. And then he gets an allowance to handle the people that work in his office to handle his mail. And the allowance for my State of California is enough to hire 13 people. And let me say, incidentally, that that allowance is not paid to the Senator. It's paid directly to the individuals that the Senator puts on his pay roll. But all of these people and all of these allowances are for strictly official business; business, for example, when a constituent writes in and wants you to go down to the Veteran's Administration and get some information about his GI policy -- items of that type, for example. But there are other expenses which are not covered by the Government. And I think I can best discuss those expenses by asking you some questions.

 

Do you think that when I or any other Senator makes a political speech, has it printed, should charge the printing of that speech and the mailing of that speech to the taxpayers? Do you think, for example, when I or any other Senator makes a trip to his home State to make a purely political speech that the cost of that trip should be charged to the taxpayers? Do you think when a Senator makes political broadcasts or political television broadcasts, radio or television, that the expense of those broadcasts should be charged to the taxpayers? Well I know what your answer is. It's the same answer that audiences give me whenever I discuss this particular problem: The answer is no. The taxpayers shouldn't be required to finance items which are not official business but which are primarily political business.

 

Well, then the question arises, you say, "Well, how do you pay for these and how can you do it legally?" And there are several ways that it can be done, incidentally, and that it is done legally in the United States Senate and in the Congress. The first way is to be a rich man. I don't happen to be a rich man, so I couldn't use that one. Another way that is used is to put your wife on the pay roll. Let me say, incidentally, that my opponent, my opposite number for the Vice Presidency on the Democratic ticket, does have his wife on the pay roll and has had it -- her on his pay roll for the ten years -- for the past ten years. Now just let me say this: That's his business, and I'm not critical of him for doing that. You will have to pass judgment on that particular point.

But I have never done that for this reason: I have found that there are so many deserving stenographers and secretaries in Washington that needed the work that I just didn't feel it was right to put my wife on the pay roll.

 

My wife's sitting over here. She's a wonderful stenographer. She used to teach stenography and she used to teach shorthand in high school. That was when I met her. And I can tell you folks that she's worked many hours at night and many hours on Saturdays and Sundays in my office, and she's done a fine job, and I am proud to say tonight that in the six years I've been in the House and the Senate of the United States, Pat Nixon has never been on the Government pay roll.

 

What are other ways that these finances can be taken care of? Some who are lawyers, and I happen to be a lawyer, continue to practice law, but I haven't been able to do that. I'm so far away from California that I've been so busy with my senatorial work that I have not engaged in any legal practice. And, also, as far as law practice is concerned, it seemed to me that the relationship between an attorney and the client was so personal that you couldn't possibly represent a man as an attorney and then have an unbiased view when he presented his case to you in the event that he had one before Government.

 

And so I felt that the best way to handle these necessary political expenses of getting my message to the American people and the speeches I made -- the speeches that I had printed for the most part concerned this one message of exposing this Administration, the Communism in it, the corruption in it -- the only way that I could do that was to accept the aid which people in my home State of California, who contributed to my campaign and who continued to make these contributions after I was elected, were glad to make.

And let me say I'm proud of the fact that not one of them has ever asked me for a special favor. I'm proud of the fact that not one of them has ever asked me to vote on a bill other than of my own conscience would dictate. And I am proud of the fact that the taxpayers, by subterfuge or otherwise, have never paid one dime for expenses which I thought were political and shouldn't be charged to the taxpayers.

 

Let me say, incidentally, that some of you may say, "Well, that's all right, Senator, that's your explanation, but have you got any proof?" And I'd like to tell you this evening that just an hour ago we received an independent audit of this entire fund. I suggested to Governor Sherman Adams, who is the Chief of Staff of the Dwight Eisenhower campaign, that an independent audit and legal report be obtained, and I have that audit here in my hands. It's an audit made by the Price Waterhouse & Company firm, and the legal opinion by Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher, lawyers in Los Angeles, the biggest law firm, and incidentally, one of the best ones in Los Angeles.

 

I am proud to be able to report to you tonight that this audit and this legal opinion is being forwarded to General Eisenhower. And I'd like to read to you the opinion that was prepared by Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher, and based on all the pertinent laws and statutes, together with the audit report prepared by the certified public accountants. Quote:

 

It is our conclusion that Senator Nixon did not obtain any financial gain from the collection and disbursement of the fund by Dana Smith; that Senator Nixon did not violate any federal or state law by reason of the operation of the fund; and that neither the portion of the fund paid by Dana Smith directly to third persons, nor the portion paid to Senator Nixon, to reimburse him for designated office expenses, constituted income to the Senator which was either reportable or taxable as income under applicable tax laws.

          (signed)

          Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher,

          by Elmo H. Conley

 

Now that, my friends, is not Nixon speaking, but that's an independent audit which was requested, because I want the American people to know all the facts, and I am not afraid of having independent people go in and check the facts, and that is exactly what they did. But then I realized that there are still some who may say, and rightfully so -- and let me say that I recognize that some will continue to smear regardless of what the truth may be -- but that there has been, understandably, some honest misunderstanding on this matter, and there are some that will say, "Well, maybe you were able, Senator, to fake this thing. How can we believe what you say? After all, is there a possibility that maybe you got some sums in cash? Is there a possibility that you may have feathered your own nest?" And so now, what I am going to do -- and incidentally this is unprecedented in the history of American politics -- I am going at this time to give to this television and radio audio -- audience, a complete financial history, everything I've earned, everything I've spent, everything I own. And I want you to know the facts.

 

I'll have to start early. I was born in 1913. Our family was one of modest circumstances, and most of my early life was spent in a store out in East Whittier. It was a grocery store, one of those family enterprises. The only reason we were able to make it go was because my mother and dad had five boys, and we all worked in the store. I worked my way through college, and, to a great extent, through law school. And then in 1940, probably the best thing that ever happened to me happened. I married Pat who's sitting over here. We had a rather difficult time after we were married, like so many of the young couples who may be listening to us. I practiced law. She continued to teach school.

 

Then, in 1942, I went into the service. Let me say that my service record was not a particularly unusual one. I went to the South Pacific. I guess I'm entitled to a couple of battle stars. I got a couple of letters of commendation. But I was just there when the bombs were falling. And then I returned -- returned to the United States, and in 1946, I ran for the Congress. When we came out of the war -- Pat and I -- Pat during the war had worked as a stenographer, and in a bank, and as an economist for a Government agency -- and when we came out, the total of our savings, from both my law practice, her teaching and all the time that I was in the war, the total for that entire period was just a little less than 10,000 dollars. Every cent of that, incidentally, was in Government bonds. Well that's where we start, when I go into politics.

 

Now, what have I earned since I went into politics? Well, here it is. I've jotted it down. Let me read the notes. First of all, I've had my salary as a Congressman and as a Senator. Second, I have received a total in this past six years of 1600 dollars from estates which were in my law firm at the time that I severed my connection with it. And, incidentally, as I said before, I have not engaged in any legal practice and have not accepted any fees from business that came into the firm after I went into politics. I have made an average of approximately 1500 dollars a year from nonpolitical speaking engagements and lectures.

 

And then, fortunately, we've inherited a little money. Pat sold her interest in her father's estate for 3,000 dollars, and I inherited 1500 dollars from my grandfather. We lived rather modestly. For four years we lived in an apartment in Parkfairfax, in Alexandria, Virginia. The rent was 80 dollars a month. And we saved for the time that we could buy a house. Now, that was what we took in. What did we do with this money? What do we have today to show for it? This will surprise you because it is so little, I suppose, as standards generally go of people in public life.

First of all, we've got a house in Washington, which cost 41,000 dollars and on which we owe 20,000 dollars. We have a house in Whittier, California which cost 13,000 dollars and on which we owe 3000 dollars. My folks are living there at the present time. I have just 4000 dollars in life insurance, plus my GI policy which I've never been able to convert, and which will run out in two years. I have no life insurance whatever on Pat. I have no life insurance on our two youngsters, Tricia and Julie. I own a 1950 Oldsmobile car. We have our furniture. We have no stocks and bonds of any type. We have no interest of any kind, direct or indirect, in any business. Now, that's what we have. What do we owe?

 

Well in addition to the mortgage, the 20,000 dollar mortgage on the house in Washington, the 10,000 dollar one on the house in Whittier, I owe 4500 dollars to the Riggs Bank in Washington, D.C., with interest 4 and 1/2 percent. I owe 3500 dollars to my parents, and the interest on that loan, which I pay regularly, because it's the part of the savings they made through the years they were working so hard -- I pay regularly 4 percent interest. And then I have a 500 dollar loan, which I have on my life insurance.

 

Well, that's about it. That's what we have. And that's what we owe. It isn't very much. But Pat and I have the satisfaction that every dime that we've got is honestly ours. I should say this, that Pat doesn't have a mink coat. But she does have a respectable Republican cloth coat, and I always tell her she'd look good in anything.

 

One other thing I probably should tell you, because if I don't they'll probably be saying this about me, too. We did get something, a gift, after the election. A man down in Texas heard Pat on the radio mention the fact that our two youngsters would like to have a dog. And believe it or not, the day before we left on this campaign trip we got a message from Union Station in Baltimore, saying they had a package for us. We went down to get it. You know what it was? It was a little cocker spaniel dog in a crate that he'd sent all the way from Texas, black and white, spotted. And our little girl Tricia, the six year old, named it "Checkers." And you know, the kids, like all kids, love the dog, and I just want to say this, right now, that regardless of what they say about it, we're gonna keep it.

 

It isn't easy to come before a nationwide audience and bare your life, as I've done. But I want to say some things before I conclude that I think most of you will agree on. Mr. Mitchell, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, made this statement -- that if a man couldn't afford to be in the United States Senate, he shouldn't run for the Senate. And I just want to make my position clear. I don't agree with Mr. Mitchell when he says that only a rich man should serve his Government in the United States Senate or in the Congress. I don't believe that represents the thinking of the Democratic Party, and I know that it doesn't represent the thinking of the Republican Party.

 

I believe that it's fine that a man like Governor Stevenson, who inherited a fortune from his father, can run for President. But I also feel that it's essential in this country of ours that a man of modest means can also run for President, because, you know, remember Abraham Lincoln, you remember what he said: "God must have loved the common people -- he made so many of them."

 

And now I'm going to suggest some courses of conduct. First of all, you have read in the papers about other funds, now. Mr. Stevenson apparently had a couple -- one of them in which a group of business people paid and helped to supplement the salaries of State employees. Here is where the money went directly into their pockets, and I think that what Mr. Stevenson should do should be to come before the American people, as I have, give the names of the people that contributed to that fund, give the names of the people who put this money into their pockets at the same time that they were receiving money from their State government and see what favors, if any, they gave out for that.

I don't condemn Mr. Stevenson for what he did, but until the facts are in there is a doubt that will be raised. And as far as Mr. Sparkman is concerned, I would suggest the same thing. He's had his wife on the payroll. I don't condemn him for that, but I think that he should come before the American people and indicate what outside sources of income he has had. I would suggest that under the circumstances both Mr. Sparkman and Mr. Stevenson should come before the American people, as I have, and make a complete financial statement as to their financial history, and if they don't it will be an admission that they have something to hide. And I think you will agree with me -- because, folks, remember, a man that's to be President of the United States, a man that's to be Vice President of the United States, must have the confidence of all the people. And that's why I'm doing what I'm doing. And that's why I suggest that Mr. Stevenson and Mr. Sparkman, since they are under attack, should do what they're doing.

 

Now let me say this: I know that this is not the last of the smears. In spite of my explanation tonight, other smears will be made. Others have been made in the past. And the purpose of the smears, I know, is this: to silence me; to make me let up. Well, they just don't know who they're dealing with. I'm going to tell you this: I remember in the dark days of the Hiss case some of the same columnists, some of the same radio commentators who are attacking me now and misrepresenting my position, were violently opposing me at the time I was after Alger Hiss. But I continued to fight because I knew I was right, and I can say to this great television and radio audience that I have no apologies to the American people for my part in putting Alger Hiss where he is today. And as far as this is concerned, I intend to continue to fight.

 

Why do I feel so deeply? Why do I feel that in spite of the smears, the misunderstanding, the necessity for a man to come up here and bare his soul as I have -- why is it necessary for me to continue this fight? And I want to tell you why. Because, you see, I love my country. And I think my country is in danger. And I think the only man that can save America at this time is the man that's running for President, on my ticket -- Dwight Eisenhower. You say, "Why do I think it is in danger?" And I say, look at the record. Seven years of the Truman-Acheson Administration, and what's happened? Six hundred million people lost to the Communists. And a war in Korea in which we have lost 117,000 American casualties, and I say to all of you that a policy that results in the loss of 600 million people to the Communists, and a war which cost us 117,000 American casualties isn't good enough for America. And I say that those in the State Department that made the mistakes which caused that war and which resulted in those losses should be kicked out of the State Department just as fast as we get them out of there.

And let me say that I know Mr. Stevenson won't do that because he defends the Truman policy, and I know that Dwight Eisenhower will do that, and that he will give America the leadership that it needs. Take the problem of corruption. You've read about the mess in Washington. Mr. Stevenson can't clean it up because he was picked by the man, Truman, under whose Administration the mess was made. You wouldn't trust the man who made the mess to clean it up. That's Truman. And by the same token you can't trust the man who was picked by the man that made the mess to clean it up -- and that's Stevenson.

 

And so I say, Eisenhower, who owed nothing to Truman, nothing to the big city bosses -- he is the man that can clean up the mess in Washington. Take Communism. I say that as far as that subject is concerned the danger is great to America. In the Hiss case they got the secrets which enabled them to break the American secret State Department code. They got secrets in the atomic bomb case which enabled them to get the secret of the atomic bomb five years before they would have gotten it by their own devices. And I say that any man who called the Alger Hiss case a red herring isn't fit to be President of the United States. I say that a man who, like Mr. Stevenson, has pooh-poohed and ridiculed the Communist threat in the United States -- he said that they are phantoms among ourselves. He has accused us that have attempted to expose the Communists, of looking for Communists in the Bureau of Fisheries and Wildlife. I say that a man who says that isn't qualified to be President of the United States. And I say that the only man who can lead us in this fight to rid the Government of both those who are Communists and those who have corrupted this Government is Eisenhower, because Eisenhower, you can be sure, recognizes the problem, and he knows how to deal with it.

Now let me that finally, this evening, I want to read to you, just briefly, excerpts from a letter which I received, a letter which after all this is over no one can take away from us. It reads as follows:

 

Dear Senator Nixon,

Since I am only 19 years of age, I can't vote in this presidential election, but believe me if I could you and General Eisenhower would certainly get my vote. My husband is in the Fleet Marines in Korea. He' a corpsman on the front lines and we have a two month old son he's never seen. And I feel confident that with great Americans like you and General Eisenhower in the White House, lonely Americans like myself will be united with their loved ones now in Korea. I only pray to God that you won't be too late. Enclosed is a small check to help you in your campaign. Living on $85 a month, it is all I can afford at present, but let me know what else I can do.

Folks, it's a check for 10 dollars, and it's one that I will never cash. And just let me say this: We hear a lot about prosperity these days, but I say why can't we have prosperity built on peace, rather than prosperity built on war? Why can't we have prosperity and an honest Government in Washington, D.C., at the same time? Believe me, we can. And Eisenhower is the man that can lead this crusade to bring us that kind of prosperity.

 

And now, finally, I know that you wonder whether or not I am going to stay on the Republican ticket or resign. Let me say this: I don't believe that I ought to quit, because I am not a quitter. And, incidentally, Pat's not a quitter. After all, her name was Patricia Ryan and she was born on St. Patrick's day, and you know the Irish never quit.

But the decision, my friends, is not mine. I would do nothing that would harm the possibilities of Dwight Eisenhower to become President of the United States. And for that reason I am submitting to the Republican National Committee tonight through this television broadcast the decision which it is theirs to make. Let them decide whether my position on the ticket will help or hurt. And I am going to ask you to help them decide. Wire and write the Republican National Committee whether you think I should stay on or whether I should get off. And whatever their decision is, I will abide by it.

 

But just let me say this last word: Regardless of what happens, I'm going to continue this fight. I'm going to campaign up and down in America until we drive the crooks and the Communists and those that defend them out of Washington. And remember folks, Eisenhower is a great man, believe me. He's a great man. And a vote for Eisenhower is a vote for what's good for America. And what's good for America....

post #12 of 4682
Thread Starter 
Speaking of which, while I've created this thread with the mindset that it is essentially underailable (not a word, but I'm making it one), it's also thinkpiece porn paradise. If it's in the realm of entertainment media to some degree or another, no matter what it is or where it comes from, if it's interesting or ridiculous or both, post it here and let's have that conversation.

I really want us to talk about how we consume this stuff and how we feel when we're challenged on it or are driven to challenge others. Hell, maybe just what we observe even if we don't engage.

I am fucking done with the Kingsman stuff, but if we get a couple pages out of that? Fine.
post #13 of 4682

In a more serious response, I have had a hard time with the 50 Shades of Grey media response. I am an English teacher and work with intelligent, literary minded people, some of who lost their minds when the novel was sweeping the country. I have read it. It is terribly written. I can't comment on the BDSM community standpoint, but even for fan-fiction erotica it is terrible. But if I brought up the opinion, I was often dismissed as either a prude or a representative of the patriarchy, trying to keep the female libido down.  I never could figure out how to have a conversation about the topic that didn't fall into those two categories.  My arguments mostly ended with me saying "I don't care if people read erotica, but let's not elevate 50 Shades to the level of common conversation. It doesn't deserve it."

 

I am all for pushing America to look at the hypocrisy of its stance on sex and violence in media, but I would rather use something with better value to make that argument.

post #14 of 4682

DOWN WITH THE PATRIARCHY!!!

post #15 of 4682
Thread Starter 
It's the hottest conversation in the office right now. It's been brought up every day since the film hit. The material may not be worth it, but there's something to say about the reason why something apparently so poor has captured the imaginations of so many people.

I'm not trying to say the same old stuff I've been banging on about, but there is in my mind absolutely a connection between the infantilization of the culture and the rabid consumption and apotheosis of such pedestrian material and it goes beyond gender. I would also like to stress that people need to rid their minds of the audience for 50 Shades purely being sex-starved soccer moms in Utah. That is nowhere near true.
post #16 of 4682
Absolutely.

There's also teenage girls who want to piss off their parents.
post #17 of 4682
Thread Starter 
It's crossed racial, age, and class boundaries. Part of it is just water cooler conversation and the social stuff that crystallizes for us in high school. If you want to be in the circle, do as the circle does. Not a single woman in my office has much of a bad word to say against the movie. Most of the criticisms center around not seeing Jamie Dornan's dick and the sex scenes not being graphic enough.

I wish I knew women in my personal life who were into this (though I've had the odd conversation or two with friends of friends), but none of my female friends give a shit.
post #18 of 4682
That's just it though, isn't it? Plenty of people don't give a shit (I don't know a single woman who's even read the book or seen the movie,) it's just the ones who do that get all the attention, since "a number of people like a shitty book because it has kinky sex in it" has been declared Officially A Huge Important News Item as opposed to the default state of the publishing industry for at least the last twenty years.

Seriously, though, with regards to the topic at hand: this is something that's been disturbing me more and more over the past seven or eight years as it's gained greater prominence. This kind of vicious tribalism and ideological witch-hunting was always around since I first got on the Internet back in 2000 or so, but it used to be limited to individual communities - if Dan's Generic Quake Forum #37 had a toxic meltdown flamewar, well, you could always go to Bob's House O' Half-Life and never think about it again, for the most part. It took the small minority of major sites with really huge audiences (SomethingAwful, way back when, then Slashdot and to a lesser extent Reddit) to even make waves on the rest of the Internet.

But ever since the rise of "social media" and the creation of sites specifically intended as an all-purpose one-stop shop for all Internet communication, not only has it become increasingly difficult for smaller online communities to avoid the shitstorms brewed on the megalithic sites, it's gotten to the point where people's Internet catfights can have actual real-world impacts, up to the point of people losing their jobs. And while on one level I think that, for example, Adam Orth totally deserved to get canned, it's still pretty terrifying to anybody who's ever observed the kind of beyond-childish bullshit that even relatively minor Internet arguments can devolve into to think that we're starting to allow this shit to matter in the real world now.

Moreover, it's become a thing that people are learning how to weaponize; various groups are actually going out of their way to create these kinds of controversies around people they don't like. And of course if people try to avoid becoming embroiled, they're then accused of siding with the opposition or get slapped with the eleventy billionth "first they came for the Socialists" quote because they don't want to get involved in this conversation or even just don't want to have the conversation on the predetermined terms. (I mean, you want to have a discussion about the representation of women in videogames, hypothetical Internet person? Sure, let's roll. But don't treat me like some kind of troglodyte because I'd rather just discuss my and your thoughts on the subject than spend hours doing the apparently-mandatory preparatory homework of watching a video series from some lady who got a lot of money on Kickstarter.)

And (no offense, JJ,) the whole "well at least it's started a conversation!" thing is largely horseshit, because A. 90% of the time it's not a conversation so much as a flamewar and/or witch-hunt that's putting on airs, and B. 90% of the participants are just masturbating anyway. I hate to be the person to go off about people having the wrong motives for making an argument, but the entire reason these shitstorms get so huge in the first place is because of "slacktivists" stroking themselves to egogasm by me-tooing anybody who falls into their camp every time they so much as fart. (In other words, Twitter is the crusty sock of the Internet-debate world.) It's no wonder these things turn into such monkey-house shitfests.
post #19 of 4682

I really feel that all these extreme reactions have little to do with the actual "offender." As humans we tend to want to know where our boundaries are in society. Then we fill the space between the boundaries with our personality and meet other people there. In the real world this may be about someone working in a place with a strict dress code trying weird ties, thus staking his claim as the "tie guy." But the internet is literally boundless. And now it's a large part of our social interaction. But in trying to found our personal boundaries in the way we usually do the small steps we take in real life are useless. So we end up firing canon shots into weirder and weirder territories. "Last night's episode was not that good" may reach someone over the water cooler and get a reaction. On the internet it will do nothing. "Last night's episode raped my family while I watched and beat me to death with their decapitated heads" is more likely to reach someone and make them acknowledge us. 

post #20 of 4682

One of the biggest problems with modern society and social media in general for me is how any sort of nuance and context seems to getting thrown out of the window more and more in favour of having things fit a perceived social narrative.

 

Make a tasteless and possibly racist joke on Twitter and you're not someone who has a poor sense of humour, you're a racist and bigot and must be destroyed.

 

Wear a tacky shirt with half-nude fantasy portraits of women on it and you're not someone with a bad fashion sense, you're a misogynist and hater of women that must be destroyed.

 

Even with media, 50 Shades isn't just trashy fiction which has gained a lot of traction for various mundane reasons.  It HAS to be attached to a larger narrative of either empowering female sexuality or insidiously attempting to condition women to accept abuse depending on who you ask.  The gag in Kingsman can't be a silly throwback to earlier Bond movies with the raunchiness turned up a bit, it HAS to be symptomatic of misogynistic attitudes.  

 

This ties into how "Death of The Author" is becoming a more and more popular method for viewing anything, something I greatly disagree with since intent and context are far more important to a piece of art than what some random jackoff like myself feels it SHOULD be about.  With the rise of Facebook, Twitter, Reddit etc. people are being more and more conditioned into believing that their thoughts and feelings are important.  And in some cases, MORE important than the original creator's.  Opinions are getting treated like facts more and more and that just does not sit right with me

 

I dislike extremes in anything.  Whether it's the far right or the far left whenever you are so militantly attached to a certain ideology or viewpoint to the exclusion of any other viewpoints it becomes dangerous.  Is there really any difference between a 4Chan troll harassing and doxxing someone like Anita Sarkeesian or Brianna Wu and seemingly liberal Twitter & Tumblr users getting someone like that girl who made that bad AIDS joke fired and ruining her life?  Cause both are equally shitty things to do from where I'm sitting.  And yet, both sides can't see that they are just reflections of the other.

post #21 of 4682
It would never occur to me to bring the media I consume while masturbating to work as a conversation topic. I wouldn't expect to keep my job if I did. That's the filter through which I view 50 Shades and the conversations surrounding it.
post #22 of 4682
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

It would never occur to me to bring the media I consume while masturbating to work as a conversation topic. I wouldn't expect to keep my job if I did. That's the filter through which I view 50 Shades and the conversations surrounding it.

This is a point of contention for me as I work in an environment that is often extremely inappropriate. The people I work with are oddly, for our line of business, use to not holding back in conversation. I stay out of it, but it is a frustrating atmosphere to deal with.
post #23 of 4682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

It would never occur to me to bring the media I consume while masturbating to work as a conversation topic. I wouldn't expect to keep my job if I did. That's the filter through which I view 50 Shades and the conversations surrounding it.

 

Absolutely agreed.  I wanted to make this point myself.  However, I'm pretty sure those that talk about 50 Shades at work would defend, to their death, how this is different.

post #24 of 4682
Thread Starter 
No one I work with defends anything. It's just the way it is. Not everyone, but a particular group of people in my department. Recently my co-workers were having a conversation about women who smoke, and one guy said he didn't mind that much, to which the other replied "Obviously, your pussy doesn't have a face." This was said in front of a female co-worker who was involved in said conversation. She paused and then scoffed and that was it for her reaction, though it clearly made her uncomfortable. Hearing this shit drives me nuts, but I'm looking to move in a year anyway, so fuck it.
post #25 of 4682

I think the problem lies less with people wanting to tie films with societal issues and more to do with assholes being, well, assholes.

 

Do I think 50 Shades of Grey is this evil film destined to whip up a raping frenzy amongst the general population? Nope. But I do think it'd be interesting to discuss how that movie reflects how Americans not only see sex in film, sex in general. I think there's plenty of intelligent discussion to mine from that. Plus it's fun.

post #26 of 4682
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post

That's just it though, isn't it? Plenty of people don't give a shit (I don't know a single woman who's even read the book or seen the movie,) it's just the ones who do that get all the attention, since "a number of people like a shitty book because it has kinky sex in it" has been declared Officially A Huge Important News Item as opposed to the default state of the publishing industry for at least the last twenty years.

Seriously, though, with regards to the topic at hand: this is something that's been disturbing me more and more over the past seven or eight years as it's gained greater prominence. This kind of vicious tribalism and ideological witch-hunting was always around since I first got on the Internet back in 2000 or so, but it used to be limited to individual communities - if Dan's Generic Quake Forum #37 had a toxic meltdown flamewar, well, you could always go to Bob's House O' Half-Life and never think about it again, for the most part. It took the small minority of major sites with really huge audiences (SomethingAwful, way back when, then Slashdot and to a lesser extent Reddit) to even make waves on the rest of the Internet.

But ever since the rise of "social media" and the creation of sites specifically intended as an all-purpose one-stop shop for all Internet communication, not only has it become increasingly difficult for smaller online communities to avoid the shitstorms brewed on the megalithic sites, it's gotten to the point where people's Internet catfights can have actual real-world impacts, up to the point of people losing their jobs. And while on one level I think that, for example, Adam Orth totally deserved to get canned, it's still pretty terrifying to anybody who's ever observed the kind of beyond-childish bullshit that even relatively minor Internet arguments can devolve into to think that we're starting to allow this shit to matter in the real world now.

Moreover, it's become a thing that people are learning how to weaponize; various groups are actually going out of their way to create these kinds of controversies around people they don't like. And of course if people try to avoid becoming embroiled, they're then accused of siding with the opposition or get slapped with the eleventy billionth "first they came for the Socialists" quote because they don't want to get involved in this conversation or even just don't want to have the conversation on the predetermined terms. (I mean, you want to have a discussion about the representation of women in videogames, hypothetical Internet person? Sure, let's roll. But don't treat me like some kind of troglodyte because I'd rather just discuss my and your thoughts on the subject than spend hours doing the apparently-mandatory preparatory homework of watching a video series from some lady who got a lot of money on Kickstarter.)

And (no offense, JJ,) the whole "well at least it's started a conversation!" thing is largely horseshit, because A. 90% of the time it's not a conversation so much as a flamewar and/or witch-hunt that's putting on airs, and B. 90% of the participants are just masturbating anyway. I hate to be the person to go off about people having the wrong motives for making an argument, but the entire reason these shitstorms get so huge in the first place is because of "slacktivists" stroking themselves to egogasm by me-tooing anybody who falls into their camp every time they so much as fart. (In other words, Twitter is the crusty sock of the Internet-debate world.) It's no wonder these things turn into such monkey-house shitfests.

I can't speak for other people, but for the most part, I find open engagement in sexual fantasy to be perfectly healthy (when it's not crudely tossed about in the work place) and the conversation regarding the pushback amongst people whom you would assume have sexually liberated attitudes is curious to me, so I respond. If I happen to jump on somebody, it's nothing to do with my motivation, that's just my disposition.

There's a line in the US version of Queer as Folk where a character is skittish about pursuing a potential sex partner, stating that "I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do", his friend counters with "Sex is never the right thing to do."

It's simplistic, but what he's saying is that sometimes you want what you want and that's that. I believe in this. It's not a maxim, but I feel that in the proper circumstance it is a pragmatic approach and I'm comfortable with it. What I see in 50 Shades is the never ending and always contentious debate about female sexuality and I'm standing firmly on the side of "do as you will".
post #27 of 4682
I really didn't intend to get into this debate at all (my point was just that, hey, you yourself pointed out that lots of people don't give a fuck, and my own experience corroborates that, so maybe this really isn't as huge a deal as the media circus would have us believe,) but I'd just like to point out that your "what I see in yadda yadda" is exactly the kind of thing we've been talking about here. You're taking a topic of contention for many people (however huge or not-huge it really is, we can certainly number the people who do care as "a fair bunch,") and boiling it down to "this is about expression of female sexuality," which I don't think I'm being unfair in saying is something of a pet issue for you, and disregarding any other points of view (such as the view that "hey, this book and movie about sexual violence towards women kind of comes off as being disturbingly about sexual violence towards women, and maybe that's not totally okay," a view held by a number of women I know, none of whom I would classify as sexually repressed) pretty much entirely.

I mean, certainly it's a free Internet and you're not breaking any rules by having and expressing views about the expression of female sexuality. But the way you're automatically slotting that whole argument into your own personal narrative about a pet issue of yours while dismissing the facets of it that don't fit that interpretation is pretty much exactly what we're talking about.
post #28 of 4682
Thread Starter 
This is how we form opinions. We take our own personal experience and apply it to issues like this. When I say "do as you will", it's that I blanche at the idea of assuming that there is a wall ignorance that needs to be broken down, rather than a fascinating puzzle that needs to be pieced together.

Conflict is a part of evolution, but evolving into something doesn't need to be a war against one thing or another. One of my favorite films is John Cameron Mitchell's Shortbus. That film, which contains explicit pansexual activity, was partly a reaction to the transgressive cinema coming out of Europe like Baise Moi, which also employed explicit sex, but in a very dark and depressing way. It has BDSM, gay threesomes, masturbation, autofellatio, etc. It's a funny, dramatically sincere, and often beautiful movie that is political in nature and a reaction to the culture, but it never feels that way. In fact, one of the best things about it is that it largely revolves around the leading female character's inability to orgasm and ends on exactly that thing. She achieves orgasm. The camera is on her face, and according to the actress, that orgasm was 100% real because she asked for Mitchell to create an environment where she make that happen.

It is exactly the kind of artistic response that I applaud.
post #29 of 4682
Dude, I'm really not talking about your specific views on sexual fetishism in popular culture. I don't care about that at all. What I'm saying is that you can't just take an entire debate being held by a bunch of people coming from a wide variety of viewpoints and boil it down to "it's about this one pet issue of mine" without dismissing every take on the issue that doesn't fit that (of which there are several, not least the "maybe violent sexual dominance towards women is kind of creepy you guys" view) out-of-hand, and that that's exactly the kind of behavior that we've been talking about here.
post #30 of 4682
Thread Starter 
I think I was pretty clear about my mission statement for this thread. My sexual philosophy is absolutely important when it comes to discussing sexual and gender politics. It's part of my worldview and if I choose to use it to debate one thing or another, then that's the way it's going to be. That's not being dismissive, that's choosing a method of engagement.
post #31 of 4682
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post

Dude, I'm really not talking about your specific views on sexual fetishism in popular culture. I don't care about that at all.

SO MEAN

 

must take this to social media to enact: PUBLIC SHAMING INITIATIVE

post #32 of 4682
Ai yi yi. I'm not saying that you shouldn't express your views, in or out of the context of this debate. I'm saying that your views don't make somebody else's debate actually about what you think it's about. It's entirely reasonable to express your opinion on a topic with regard to your own personal views where relevant. It's not reasonable to expect that your own views should frame and set the terms for an entire pre-existing argument.
post #33 of 4682

You're TOO LATE.

 

The SOCIAL MEDIA PUBLIC SHAMING APPARATUS, once activated, cannot be reversed!!

post #34 of 4682
What if I have a meeting with Al Sharpton?
post #35 of 4682
Thread Starter 
Sharpton can't get you out of this one. Racist.
post #36 of 4682

A great even-handed piece by Tasha Robinson on the predictable hubbub over Matt Zoller Seitz's experience of showing his 11-year-old son and his friends ALIENS for the first time.

 

https://thedissolve.com/features/exposition/945-theres-no-universal-right-age-for-aliens-or-any-ot/

 

I think this covers a lot of what this thread is about.

post #37 of 4682
Thread Starter 
This is not a fully formed idea, and I will ramble, but I cannot escape the feeling that there is a connection between targeted search engines and the looming death of cinematic literacy.

I don't want to get harsh here, but it seems to me that there is a widening gulf between the nature of classic storytelling, how plots are constructed, and how films are generally made, and the audience's ability to reconcile that with their own worldview.

A targeted search engine is like digitized myopia, narrowing the margin of what you consume, looping and relooping content in the same wheelhouse. Your worldview becomes smaller and smaller until it ends up resting on your nose. You lose something, even if you don't immediately recognize it.

In film discussion, there seems (to me) to be an increase in people stating that a filmmaker got something or another "wrong". That's usually tossed about in snap analysis when something occurs in the narrative of a film that said viewer cannot reconcile with their own belief system and they bridge this gap with something that does not follow. It doesn't have to be a major thing either.

For example, if a film employs characters who commit crimes to tell a story about the politically and economically oppressed, it can, from a certain POV, turn into the filmmaker getting "something wrong" and propagating the stereotype of the poor as criminals. Nevermind if the plot is action-based and the only way your protagonists can get what they need is via illegal means so the screenwriter can effectively drive the plot forward, and nevermind the Golden Age of Bank Robbery where the disenfranchised peoples of a nation were suffering and pissed off at the powers that be and raised people like John Dillinger to mythic status.

It becomes a thing where it's not just about a disagreement on the story being told, or the perspective being shared, it's like a total air ball on the general mechanics of filmmaking.
post #38 of 4682
Thread Starter 
I'm probably not making sense there, but that's okay. Snap analysis. I just shat that out on my phone.
post #39 of 4682

Haha. It's okay. I am kinda having trouble understanding what you mean.

 

Are you talking about people's tendency to reduce complex social matters into simplistic matters of black and white, good or evil?

post #40 of 4682
Thread Starter 
It's actually the opposite. It's someone applying a very complicated read on something that's simple and functional. Like looking at IKEA instructions and extrapolating from it the fall of Weimar Germany. It's a step above (or below) misinterpretation.

I'll throw out another example. I don't want to talk about this movie, but I think it'll make my thoughts easier to understand.

TDKR. A contentious subject for a number of reasons, but one of the weirdest reactions that I read was a review / analysis of the film that accused it of subtle homophobia.

The writer stated the opinion that Selina Kyle and Juno Temple's characters were intentionally queer-coded because they lived together and in one scene, Temple hugs Selina Kyle in a very affectionate manner that read as a lover's embrace.

The film becomes homophobic when Wayne convinces Kyle to redeem her criminal leanings (queerness) and form with him what will eventually become a romantic coupling.

That's an extreme example, but it was really, really bizarre, especially because the author was so passionate and angry about it. Interpretive analysis is interpretive analysis, but how do you get ANGRY off of that? The legwork outside of the text is already kind of exhaustive, and to be pissed about something that you can in no logical way assume was the intent, is incredibly strange.
post #41 of 4682
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

For example, if a film employs characters who commit crimes to tell a story about the politically and economically oppressed, it can, from a certain POV, turn into the filmmaker getting "something wrong" and propagating the stereotype of the poor as criminals. Nevermind if the plot is action-based and the only way your protagonists can get what they need is via illegal means so the screenwriter can effectively drive the plot forward, and nevermind the Golden Age of Bank Robbery where the disenfranchised peoples of a nation were suffering and pissed off at the powers that be and raised people like John Dillinger to mythic status.


I think I get you. Our hypothetical depiction of the criminalized poor can be a satire of the economy itself, depicting the system as one where the poor cannot survive within the law.
post #42 of 4682
Thread Starter 
By the way, I know I seem to be targeting liberal ideologies a lot, but if I'm going to poop, I prefer to use my own toilet. I am not partial to Conservative thought and so I find it less interesting to challenge its ideals and presumptions.
post #43 of 4682
eugh too much people who took a semester of comparative cinema/literature!
post #44 of 4682
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

I am not partial to Conservative thought and so I find it less interesting to challenge its ideals and presumptions.

And conservative thought is generally pretty simplistic when it comes to reactions to pop culture. 

post #45 of 4682
There is a tendency to read minority characters (or just stuff that passingly relates to a group) as representing a movie's attitude to the minority group as a whole.

It's a double edged sword because yeah, there's often value in doing that, especially if there's other stuff in the movie to support the idea that a certain attitude is being presented. But the other side is if you get too self conscious about it and deliberately balance your minority characters against negative stereotypes, you risk dehumanising them by not letting them just be flawed, messy people like everyone else.

I probably should've put this in the thread in question, but I was thinking about this when a poster here was going off on one about the GTA games reinforcing black stereotypes by having a black lead character, and how they should've gone against the grain and made him a digital computer hacker or something (nevermind that it would turn into a completely different game).

Now admittedly I haven't played GTA5 so can't say much about the representation in that game, but I have played all the others and it strikes me as weird to get up in arms the second you have a black character doing the *exact same stuff* everyone else has always done in those games. Isn't it more important that (like in San Andreas) the characters are halfway well written, with distinct personalities etc than just having them be model reverse-stereotypes?
post #46 of 4682

Thought this might be a good place to drop this stuff:

 

http://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/a-note-on-call-out-culture

post #47 of 4682
Backlash gaining steam!

He makes a good point about how this stuff can just turn into an empty social display - a way to prove yourself worthy of the elite in-crowd by casting out others for not making the cut.

If anyone missed this Jon Ronson article I recommend it:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/21/internet-shaming-lindsey-stone-jon-ronson

I also came across this blogger a while back who has some interesting thoughts on the topic:

http://fredrikdeboer.com/2015/01/29/i-dont-know-what-to-do-you-guys/ (this one is in reference to a Jon Chait New York Magazine article that was a slightly hamfisted attempt to deal with similar stuff)

THINKPIECES
post #48 of 4682
AW YEA DROWNING IN PIECETHINK
post #49 of 4682
Thread Starter 
Those are pretty good. I made it all the through them because I agree with them and don't like opinions different than mine.
post #50 of 4682
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post

There is a tendency to read minority characters (or just stuff that passingly relates to a group) as representing a movie's attitude to the minority group as a whole.

It's a double edged sword because yeah, there's often value in doing that, especially if there's other stuff in the movie to support the idea that a certain attitude is being presented. But the other side is if you get too self conscious about it and deliberately balance your minority characters against negative stereotypes, you risk dehumanising them by not letting them just be flawed, messy people like everyone else.

I probably should've put this in the thread in question, but I was thinking about this when a poster here was going off on one about the GTA games reinforcing black stereotypes by having a black lead character, and how they should've gone against the grain and made him a digital computer hacker or something (nevermind that it would turn into a completely different game).

Now admittedly I haven't played GTA5 so can't say much about the representation in that game, but I have played all the others and it strikes me as weird to get up in arms the second you have a black character doing the *exact same stuff* everyone else has always done in those games. Isn't it more important that (like in San Andreas) the characters are halfway well written, with distinct personalities etc than just having them be model reverse-stereotypes?

Not really a good argument to make that just because it's always been that way people shouldn't complain. It's important to take in account context: How many GTA games there has been, and the fact that people are just generally tired of playing the same shit.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Western Society, Pop Culture, and the Cacophony of Social Media