Journal of Other Forum Analysis (Volume II, Issue 2)

[Hap Shaughnessy]

[Polident]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/wkd-box-office-%E2%80%A2-07-04-06-25-%E2%80%A2-dino-crisis-four-jw-rebirth-145m-5-day-dom.1236786/page-3#post-142410633

 User Banned (1 Week): Antagonizing Fellow Member; History of Hostility

shouldn't you be busy making a thread about how the latest piece of shit is available on peacock or something

I am personally very excited for the movies Superman and The Fantastic Four: First Steps, both of which will be good and perform well at the box office.

Justice for Batgirl!

[benji]

Somewhat related. The YouTube recommended Iron Man clips. Clicked through a few. It’s kind of shocking how much better they look than the newer stuff. CGI, grading, composition. Even stuff that looked loopy at the time, you didn’t realize how much standards would plummet. That last Captain America looked absolutely awful. The ads for Superman look like the Fight Night 3 fake gameplay shown by Kudo Tsunoda in 2005. The same camera movements but with a fish eye lens effect. 

It’s weird. Other modern movies look decent. That new Jurassic Park movie looks fine. Not the movie, but like visually. With superhero movies, maybe there’s the idea people will consume whatever. We’re a couple years away from reevaluating The Amazing Bulk.

Yeah, part of me thinks Marvel movies have been the same for 15 years and then you spot a clip from Iron Man 1 and it feels very different.



Is that Iron Man saving brown people? Yikes, oof, white savior much?

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

Also marvel introducing nanotech was the dumbest thing they ever did. Everyone just has magic armor now that also happens to look like absolute shit CGI.

Jon Faverau built this in a cave with a box of scraps!

You know what Benji, you are not wrong that the film is pretty Marvel esque and is superficial  All Star Superman but that scene about:

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

of Lex Luthor using thousands of monkeys to write hate messages in social media

 

Is better than anything that Snyder did.

I take the witty absurdity of Gunn over the shallow grandiosity of Snyder.

I consider that neither witty nor absurd. In fact, I consider the entire premise both highly stupid and insulting because I'm tired of self-proclaimed elites going on and on about how everyone else is brainwashed by whatever they see as we, the audience, pat ourselves on the back for not being like that even as it's happening at the very moment.

A world where Superman is treated as both the Savior and inhuman is far more plausible to me than one where Luthor whips up real world hate against him from messages nobody sees and thus Snyder has the less shallow and grandiose take. I think BvS does a decent job at illustrating the very different reactions to Superman between people he saves and related, those who feel their power threatened, the insane (Bruce and Lex) and those who have experience with different heroes. The idea that people would suddenly stop trusting and start hating Superman years into his career makes absolutely no sense to me. Perhaps I'm missing a nuance in which the only people who takes any of it seriously is Clark and Lois who take it overly seriously as if there's nothing else and see everything as confirming it, while everyone else in the world continues on appreciating Superman as if the "online hate mob" doesn't even exist but I'd be highly skeptical you'd ever see that depicted in any kind of blockbuster movie.

[Gamegirl Nostalgia]

riri is and forever will be the better ironman. She's also smarter than Reed Richards and Tony Stark.

[Boredfrom]

A world where Superman is treated as both the Savior and inhuman is far more plausible to me than one where Luthor whips up real world hate against him from messages nobody sees and thus Snyder has the less shallow and grandiose take.

https://aristeguinoticias.com/020525/investigaciones-especiales/televisa-leaks-deja-al-descubierto-red-de-bots-y-mentiras/

Kind of Offtopic

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

Real talk, and not talking about US politics but Mexican politics, you don’t know how this shit influence the masses. People shit on Fox News but Televisa is 10 times worse  . When I have commented about the Mexicanization of the USA, includes stuff like this.

I consider that neither witty nor absurd. In fact, I consider the entire premise both highly stupid and insulting because I'm tired of self-proclaimed elites going on and on about how everyone else is brainwashed by whatever they see as we, the audience, pat ourselves on the back for not being like that even as it's happening at the very moment.

Eh… But is not the entire premise, if anything this is just to show how petty Luthor is and he knowing that it doesn’t work in everyone. They don’t exactly explore that beyond creating inner conflict with Clark and juxtaposition with how culty Luthor’s cronies are. 

If anything, is just to say how petty Luthor is in using thousands of monkeys in creating a hate campaign against Superman.

[Boredfrom]

Offtopic: Mexican politics using bot campaigns to influence public opinion (they have done this for more than a decade) is the reason why I don’t doubt about Russia involvement in cyber mob campaigns. While I doubt they changed the political balance in most cases… oh boy, you don’t have any idea how integrated has become in web communities at México.

[Gamegirl Nostalgia]

boredfrom refuses to tell us his favorite horse girl. 

[BIONIC]

I think that instead of silently and permanently thread banning people from the only feedback thread available it would be better to respond to the posts they made and have a discussion.

As stated in the thread rules, ban litigation is not allowed, even more if it includes stating conjectures about the reasoning as facts.

This thread is for conversation and feedback on general matters, as we were having it. For everything else, there's the ticket system and DMs

Okay, but in the case of Vaenyr, it very clearly wasn't ban litigation. He outright said that it wasn't his intent, and he's used it several times in the thread to point out the issues of transparency and overreach. And with the repeated issues we've seen in this thread surrounding this subject—including banning people who are discussing the very issue at hand—this looks really, really bad. Maybe I'll get banned for this, idk, but I did go through Vaenyr's posts to see what happened previously. I like knowing things in general, and I was curious if he really had misrepresented his ban.

I could only find one ban corresponding to the situation, and I can't see how it was misrepresented. In fact, it's actually the exact situation that Vaenyr described: he explained the context of a quote that made the meaning much more apparent—and I'd think on this forum, we prioritize context instead of jumping to conclusions—then was banned for minimizing war crimes on a two-week-old post... also explaining something while explicitly condemning war crimes. When trying to get clarification, he was just given a macro response and ignored otherwise.

Maybe someone really did report that two-week-old post and it just took a while to get to. But the timing and situation are exactly as he said, and they involve the user we're all talking around out of fear of being banned. Again: Vaenyr is very obviously using that situation to show that there has been a pattern of behavior and that the Donkey Kong thread debacle is far from the first.

Yeah, I mean, thread banning Vaenyr for misrepresenting the context around the ban in question is absolute bullshit. I know it is because I was there - B-Dubs did his usual coming hot into a thread, people responded to him, suddenly a decent chunk of those people were banned for posts outside of that thread. Vaenyr was only one of them.

Vaenyr's March 9th response to B-Dubs in that thread preceding his ban:



Vaenyr's Feb 27th post that was actioned following the above exchange:



At the time, IIRC, I reported one of the posts in the thread being like "Uhhh y'all realize it's a terrible look that suddenly you found the time to ban a bunch of the people who responded to B-Dubs, right?" I got some BS response and moved on.

I'm not seeing the blatant misrepresentation, though - is it that 10 days doesn't quite qualify as 2 weeks? Is it that we're supposed to take the staff's "minimizing warcrimes" ban banner at face value even though that was pretty obviously not the intent of the actioned post? Like… do y'all really expect someone to feel like they were actioned in good faith when a 10 day post is suddenly deemed unacceptable only after (…immediately after) you respond to a member of staff who'd swooped into a thread with a "what in the flying fuck is wrong with some of you" out of nowhere?

Like, I'm genuinely not interested in litigating that specific ban. It is what it is. The whole thing is a subjective enterprise on a good day. But it takes a certain amount of gall to thread ban Vaenyr for misrepresenting the above when, if anything, it was possibly an even worse example of what we saw in the DK thread: at least a handful of people suddenly dropping like flies, an element of uncharitability, and what at least really, REALLY reads like, let's call it, animus as a driving force.

Genuinely, because he was banned, Vaenyr may not have realized that he wasn't the only one who got hit with the ban hammer in that thread. What's funny is he was actually underplaying what a good example it is of some of the lesser moderation tendencies of this forum.

From my vantage point, which is of course subjective, none of what [USER=54911]Vaenyr[/USER] posted could be viewed as "justifying war crimes."

And to ensure that this is a general comment rather than a specific one, I'm noting that I used to find it disconcerting that mods -- none of whom, as far as I know, are trained in international humanitarian law -- routinely deploy legalistic language in moderation notices. It's objectively true that things that occur in armed conflict may rise to the colloquial level of tragedy, but aren't "war crimes" in the legal sense. I got over this, after a ban on my own end, because I realized they were just referring to "war crimes" in the colloquial sense.

I believe there's a fundamental difference between stating "this argument exists, and these actors use it," versus "I openly advocate for this argument."

And it sometimes seems like the former is considered to be the same as the latter.

By the way, I think anyone (Hasan included) who thinks that Russia's invasion of Crimea and then Greater Ukraine is remotely justified is a flat-out idiot, but I don't see a problem with noting that it's one of the lawfare-based tactics that Moscow uses to drum up support. Any understanding of Moscow's recent aggression cannot be understood without appreciating its territorial ambitions, the fall of the Soviet Union, its designs on the Caucus region, and Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics.

I've never listened to Hasan, so please don't interpret this as me going to bat for him. Frankly, everything I've heard about the guy makes me even less inclined to ever listen to a word he says. However, I admit that it's useful to understand his contextualization of things -- just as it's useful to understand, I don't know, the viewpoint on this issue of Tucker Carlson or Joe Rogan or the Call Her Daddy women or Bill Simmons or whoever's topping the Podcast charts now -- just because of their reach and how large their audience is. (To be clear, I realize some of these people are banned on Era, even if there's no list, so I'm trying to use this as a generalization, not advocacy.)

To bring things full circle, if I were [USER=54911]Vaenyr[/USER] and was banned for that, am I supposed to admit that I was banned for "justifying war crimes" if that was the furthest thing on my mind? Why would I ever claim that I engaged in such heinous behavior if that wasn't my intent?

Here's my question of the mods in this thread... what is an "acceptable" way to represent that ban? Tell us what the magic language is.

Errr... Those are some uncomfortably damning receipts. I'm used to people lying about their bans or giving it some heavy spin, it happened all the time. But honestly, while I obviously only have one "side" of the information right now, I'm coming to the same conclusion...

There's a few options here:

1. Vaenyr's post was reported and sat around for 10+ days before being coincidentally actioned after his exchange with the admin. That's possible but unlikely. When I was staff, reported posts did sit around for a while sometimes due to being understaffed or other reasons, but 10 days? That's too much. Not for something that would be considered "obviously bannable" like "minimizing war crimes" (had the post really been read that way).

2. Out of (again) sheer coincidence, someone came across and reported the 2 weeks old post around the same time that Vaenyr made his post replying to the admin, and multiple staff members unrelated to this admin agreed it was actionable. Again, this feels really unlikely and a bit contrived...

3. The ban was retaliatory like Vaenyr said.

4. Something else I can't think of right now.

So yeah, this is how it looks like on our side of the fence, and it's a bad look. But even if we chalk that up to an unfortunate coincidence, this part is very worrying:


I uh... don't want to get anyone in trouble by asking for receipts, but if this is true, this is very clearly mod abuse and unacceptable. Right?!

Since the banner says Vaenyr is "blatantly misrepresenting" events, perhaps staff ought to give an explanation clarifying what happened.

I wanna be clear, that thread is from March, I’m relying on memory, and for obvious reasons I haven’t combed through it deeply enough to 1) quantify exactly how many people were banned after posting things B-Dubs seemingly didn’t like (“handful” sounds about right) or 2) qualify the ban reasoning for each individual case.

But yeah, I figure the Vaenyr example is revealing enough, and the fact that there were more (and there were) just reinforces the feeling that, at the very least, extra scrutiny was suddenly being applied in a highly motivated way. You can jump later into the thread to see other people making the same observation and mods can pull up my report history to verify what I called out at the time.

Regardless, I don’t think we need to make a scandal of what read like a wave of motivated banning back in March. It’s just horse shit that mods managed to avoid being called out for it in any visible way and now Vaenyr is thread banned for “blatantly misrepresenting their ban” when their post was actually a completely fair and, like I said, maybe even generous read of what happened at the time.

Naaahhhh, some higher-ups would be giga-cooked based on the portions you bolded. And it's saddening to constantly see so much softening in these critiques so as not to seem overly accusatory. And a lot of it just out of outright fear of reprisal. But these accusations are very warranted and very earned. I very well could go to a post or two off the top of my head right now and report them based on the bolded, but...there would be no point as it's not like higher-ups can be "banned" like normal users would be. What even would happen to them? Nothing, that's what.

We see these things happening repeatedly in forum threads, and then when the pushback gets too hot, it's a retreating into "UwU I'm just smol bean, think how hard I/we have it." It's gross given the flagrant and repeated misuses of power and quietly sweeping things under the rug on display as detailed in this thread.

"Didn't read the article" But yes, they did.
"Use tickets for clarification" But no, you can't.
"History of misconduct" ...from an incident 5 years ago?
"Blatant misrepresentation"? Mmmmmmmmmmm-hm.

We can't trust the mods word on things like this, so...there's not a good prognosis from there, I'm afraid. But I'll throw my voice on the pile so everyone else here can feel a little less crazy.

[Boredfrom]

boredfrom refuses to tell us his favorite horse girl. 

Daiwa Scarlet (Twintails and tsundere) and Nice Nature (“is just like me, frfrfr” . But Tokai Teio is currently my best trainee.

[benji]

A world where Superman is treated as both the Savior and inhuman is far more plausible to me than one where Luthor whips up real world hate against him from messages nobody sees and thus Snyder has the less shallow and grandiose take.

Yes, it is. The idea that people have diverse views is the far more nuanced and realistic take than that everyone is enslaved in their thoughts by anonymous voices nobody sees.

Your own link proves me right, look at the engagement on the examples provided. It barely exists. The idea that simply spamming messages will change everyone's opinion on a topic is complete nonsense and people need to stop treating it as true simply because they cannot fathom how anyone could think differently from themselves.

And I very much highly doubt the film doesn't show Luthor's campaign as not achieving its purpose. Why else would you depict it? Why else would mobs be throwing bricks at Superman? It's entirely in line with Gunn's own thoughts on how social media operates. I doubt it's anything about just showing Luthor as petty versus part of his plan to turn people against Superman.

I would again point to BvS as the less shallow and grandiose one in that Luthor's plan is merely to get a lunatic to do something crazy. (His backup plan remains inexplicable and the worst part of the trilogy. It is clearly Snyder simply forcing the death card to the top of the deck.)

I am not saying Superman may not be good, I am saying that it sounds very in line with the MCU and its constant flow of garbage. Sometimes that garbage can be good, The Winter Soldier is completely stupid and awful, but it's pretty enjoyable despite being so bad. The Dark Knight is atrocious but Ledger and a (too) relentless pace carries it. I'd say Gunn's superhero movies, absent the first Guardians which threatens to be legitimately good, would indicate this could be a wheelhouse of his, but it doesn't speak well to the potential of the DCU to actually produce good stuff. What we seem to have got is worse than had Gunn simply adapted vs. The Elite as people expected. And for what? From the point of view of Warner (ZASLAV!!!) I totally understand, what I don't understand is the superhero fan.

It's very boring that people continue to pretend otherwise and do the same thing over and over again proclaiming these to be doing things I mentioned above because they can find no merits to praise and must reach for denigrating what came before as if that doesn't make clear that it's not any good. As a comics fan, an appreciator of these franchises and their original medium, it fascinates me at how bad these adaptions are. I get that they're often well received, I have no issue with that, but the other side of that fascination is how often I find nobody can articulate why they personally think they're any good in a way that makes sense while they're insisting they are. That's what makes Jeff's facts so comfy.

By the way, I think anyone (Hasan included) who thinks that Russia's invasion of Crimea and then Greater Ukraine  is remotely justified is a flat-out idiot, but I don't see a problem with noting that it's one of the lawfare-based tactics that Moscow uses to drum up support. Any understanding of Moscow's recent aggression cannot be understood without appreciating its territorial ambitions, the fall of the Soviet Union, its designs on the Caucus region, and Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics.

I've never listened to Hasan, so please don't interpret this as me going to bat for him. Frankly, everything I've heard about the guy makes me even less inclined to ever listen to a word he says. However, I admit that it's useful to understand his contextualization of things

1. I'm skeptical that's Hasan's "contextualization of things" though it'd be pretty funny if it was.
2. You don't need to know any of that stuff to understand it, you just need to know the Russians think it's theirs and it was taken from them. All of that stuff is far too late to understand why Russians think it's theirs. And frankly, pretty irrelevant information.

[Potato]

Juicy.


Edit:


That was in response to the Community Destructive Feedback thread posts from Bionic. Not the fucking nerd talk.

[Besticus Maximus]

Get that haggard old bitch off my screen or I'm spamming horsegirls.

Sarah Jessica Parker or Julia Roberts? 

Edit: Catherine the Great?

The daughter from gone with the wind

[benji]

Not the fucking nerd talk.

Blatant misrepresentation of moderation.

[benji]

I very well could go to a post or two off the top of my head right now and report them based on the bolded, but...there would be no point as it's not like higher-ups can be "banned" like normal users would be. What even would happen to them? Nothing, that's what.

We see these things happening repeatedly in forum threads, and then when the pushback gets too hot, it's a retreating into "UwU I'm just smol bean, think how hard I/we have it." It's gross given the flagrant and repeated misuses of power and quietly sweeping things under the rug on display as detailed in this thread.

It's been seven years and somebody finally mentions this.  

But don't call them cops.

[Boredfrom]

Your own link proves me right, look at the engagement on the examples provided. It barely exists.

Again, real talk, you have no idea on how integrated it is. You are saying the lack of engagement but I will tell you IS FUCKING EVERYWHERE IN THE MEXICAN WEB SPHERE!

————————

 

The idea that simply spamming messages will change everyone's opinion on a topic is complete nonsense and people need to stop treating it as true simply because they cannot fathom how anyone could think differently from themselves.

Come on. You know that is not as simple changing overnight.

In the context of the film:

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

the hate campaign is not the only reason why Luthor turn people against Superman. Luthor is able to repair a message from Supes alien parents, and Gunn made Superman Kryptonian parents Saiyains/Viltrumites  

The brick stuff is immediately after this revelation, and Superman surrenders himself to the government ten minutes later.

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

just to rescue Krypto

I am not saying Superman may not be good, I am saying that it sounds very in line with the MCU and its constant flow of garbage

Is MCU like, I would not argue you in that case. Is just a way more enjoyable film than the last two Superman films (Returns and Man of Steel) for my taste. Not even saying that is a great Superhero film, not even in my top 10, hell, The Suicide Squad is better. But better than Snyder?  hell yeah!

[HeavenIsAPlaceOnEarth]

boredfrom refuses to tell us his favorite horse girl. 

Daiwa Scarlet (Twintails and tsundere) and Nice Nature (“is just like me, frfrfr” . But Tokai Teio is currently my best trainee.

None of this makes any sense. I think Boredfrom had a stroke.

[HeavenIsAPlaceOnEarth]

What a huge nerd.

Edit: This was a response to Potato, who is a huge nerd.

[Boredfrom]

Honestly, I lot of people are going to be more pissed off about:

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

Making Kryptonians world conquering assholes

But I take it over Donut Lord marrying Louis Lane and Papa Kent awkward sacrifice.

[benji]

Your own link proves me right, look at the engagement on the examples provided. It barely exists.

Again, real talk, you have no idea on how integrated it is. You are saying the lack of engagement but I will tell you IS FUCKING EVERYWHERE IN THE MEXICAN WEB SPHERE!

Well, maybe they should have shown that rather than tweets nobody has ever read. A key part of proving something is showing evidence that supports it, not evidence that supports doubting it. Especially when it's a highly questionable theory nobody has ever been able to illustrate before.

Come on. You know that is not as simple changing overnight.

I don't. 99% of this discourse is based around that idea. (It also doesn't make sense as a plot point if it's not this.)

Is MCU like, I would not argue you in that case. Is just a way more enjoyable film than the last two Superman films (Returns and Man of Steel) for my taste. Not even saying that is a great Superhero film, not even in my top 10, hell, The Suicide Squad is better. But better than Snyder?  hell yeah!

But that's not my taste. I don't want that garbage, I don't find it enjoyable. (Especially when it looks like garbage as Polident pointed to.) I think the Snyder trilogy are some of the only good comic films, some of the only ones that really get the genre. They aren't Batman Returns, but nothing is. I just wish we'd get Thor Ragnarok level more than once a decade out of everyone else who isn't Snyder. Even Patty Jenkins only went 1 for 2 and that was with a script by a comic book writer and story by Snyder. And I'd love to give Terrio more of the credit for BvS and ZSJL but we can see what he did with Abrams as a director. That leaves two people who have done consistently well with superhero/comic type movies. (Well, not truly. But Watchmen is an exception because it's stupid to film it and it's almost a literal adaption which is equally stupid.)

I fully expect The Authority to be cancelled which is why I said Lanterns will be when I expect to shift my expectations to having given up and conclude that shared universe adaptions of comics are just a terrible idea overall. I was more optimistic when Gunn originally announced the slate, at this point Lanterns is the only thing left on the slate that sounds like it has any potential at all. It's also soon so it will be handier to RUSH TO JUDGEMENT.

Honestly, I lot of people are going to be more pissed off about:

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

Making Kryptonians world conquering assholes

It's not, that's going to be the connected plot between films and it's going to be some villain's fraud. Mark it down.

[Taco Bell Tower]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/wkd-box-office-%E2%80%A2-07-04-06-25-%E2%80%A2-dino-crisis-four-jw-rebirth-145m-5-day-dom.1236786/page-3#post-142410633

 User Banned (1 Week): Antagonizing Fellow Member; History of Hostility

We're all in agreement that no one is taking you seriously right?

shouldn't you be busy making a thread about how the latest piece of shit is available on peacock or something

ContractHolder

I know I'm gonna get a hostile/off topic warning if I continue this, so I'll let you have this. But cute.

[Polident]

So this is a force awakens situation where people like it out of spite for the previous iterations?

Sometimes that turns out okay. Like with Batman Begins. But it was obnoxious how they kept putting down the excellent Batman Forever to prop up a movie about tactical ninjas polluting water supplies.

[benji]

So this is a force awakens situation where people like it out of spite for the previous iterations?

To be clear, this is pretty expected from "nerd media" for me and that includes all mainstream media commentary. Video game reviews are regularly written about other games (or other people's opinions) rather than the game ostensibly under review.

And now that I think about it, kind of applies to a lot of mainstream politics too.

[Boredfrom]

Well, maybe they should have shown that rather than tweets nobody has ever read. A key part of proving something is showing evidence that supports it, not evidence that supports doubting it. Especially when it's a highly questionable theory nobody has ever been able to illustrate before.

What theory? I’m not saying this bot campaigns are as effective as probably ERA like wants to believe but that they exist, oh boy they exist. That is the resumed version. The long version involves a lot of mass media drama, including radio interviews.

My mother was following it more closely, and I was actually as dismissive as you until she explained me how hard it went.

I don't. 99% of this discourse is based around that idea. (It also doesn't make sense as a plot point if it's not this.)

Dude… at this point you need to see it the context of the film, because I’m telling you is not “Lex Luthor brainwash everyone overnight with monkeys typewriting hate comments.” 

And yes, that monkey scene is both hilarious and comic book as hell. And I will die in that hill like you with Snyder Trilogy.

[Boredfrom]

It's not, that's going to be the connected plot between films and it's going to be some villain's fraud. Mark it down.

I was thinking the same given that My Adventures with Superman pulls off something similar with Braniac… but in the context of this individual film, is clear the intention is “the alien parents don’t make Superman what he is”.

And yeah, we will never agree with each other about the Snyder Films. I don’t think they deserve half of the hate they got but I don’t like them and I don’t think are good.

But if I want to be nice with Snyder, I think his DC films are way more visually interesting than anything from this film.

[Boredfrom]

So this is a force awakens situation where people like it out of spite for the previous iterations?

I mean, the previous iteration includes the Bryan Singer film that is more than a decade old.

Also, while I like the prequels (weird taste but whatever), the force awakens is better film than those.

[Besticus Maximus]

No one curr what you lot think about superman, give me Jeff marvels verdict

[Gamegirl Nostalgia]

Sitting smugly over here because the best super hero flick has already been made.



Y'all keep enjoying slop while Forever chads sit at the top of Everest.

[Jansen]

Get that haggard old bitch off my screen or I'm spamming horsegirls.

I fulfilled my end of the bargain why don't you fulfill yours 

[yetanotheraccountholyf]

i thought anime talk was the absolute worst and then benji comes and shits on the dark knight? this is bullshit

retire bitch

[benji]

Well, maybe they should have shown that rather than tweets nobody has ever read. A key part of proving something is showing evidence that supports it, not evidence that supports doubting it. Especially when it's a highly questionable theory nobody has ever been able to illustrate before.

What theory? I’m not saying this bot campaigns are as effective as probably ERA like wants to believe but that they exist, oh boy they exist. That is the resumed version. The long version involves a lot of mass media drama, including radio interviews.

My mother was following it more closely, and I was actually as dismissive as you until she explained me how hard it went.

But I never said they don't exist, I said they don't change anyone's mind and that most likely nobody even sees them.

Also, while I like the prequels (weird taste but whatever), the force awakens is better film than those.

 

Sitting smugly over here because the best super hero flick has already been made.

Y'all keep enjoying slop while Forever chads sit at the top of Everest.

i thought anime talk was the absolute worst and then benji comes and shits on the dark knight? this is bullshit

retire bitch

Look at this guy being factually incorrect about that incoherent mess when Forever opens with a fight scene superior to every single one in the Nolan films:

Spoiler:                 the only good part of the Nolan films without Heath Ledger?

  (click to show)(click to hide)