Was
Was

Was

Opness
Opness

Opness

watching
 watching

watching

there
there

there

were
were

were

ifs
ifs

ifs

exceptional
exceptional

exceptional

ons
ons

ons

loves
loves

loves

go to
go to

go to

🔥 | Latest

Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride
Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: ...

Animals, Bad, and Choose One: Interesting Fact: Alex the parrot's (A subject of a 37-year experiment) last words to his caretaker were "You be good. I love you. interesting-fact.tumblr.com arry-truman casatoo: sugar-spider: a-whole-clan-of-johnnys: interesting-fact: Source CRY A LOT TRY NOT TO CRY LIE DOWN holy shit dude If you don't know Alex, I suggest you read up on him. Because yeah, sure, any parrot can mimic, but Alex was one of the first to prove on many occasions that he understood the meaning behind the words he said With that in mind, just think about what he said for a sec. Alex had to understand on some level that death means leaving. That's fucking mindblowing. Alex also was shown to have the intelligence of a young child, anywhere from 3 to 5 years old. He could do basic addition and subtraction, and independently taught himself the concept of zero (something that most CIVILIZATIONS couldn't do!) He had a vocabulary of thousands of words, some of which he made up himself, and had deep interpersonal bonds with many scientists and trainers, as well as other parrots. Alex the parrot is basically the coolest bird ever animals are often smarter than you think. There is/was a gorilla they taught sign language to. And one day she asked for a kitten. they gave her a stuffed animal but she signed sad. She wanted a real one. She was allowed to choose one from a litter. She named it All Ball and she loved it Except one day All Ball escaped from the cage and was hit by a car. And this shows you just how much animals can understand. They signed what had happened but didn't think the gorilla would understand. But she started making weeping, howling/crying sounds and the signs for bad, sad, etc. And then "Sleep, cat". She understood death. She's had two kittens since then Animals understand more than you think. Depends on the animal, yes. Animals are incredible
Animals, Bad, and Choose One: Interesting Fact:
 Alex the parrot's (A subject of a 37-year
 experiment) last words to his caretaker were
 "You be good. I love you.
 interesting-fact.tumblr.com
 arry-truman
 casatoo:
 sugar-spider:
 a-whole-clan-of-johnnys:
 interesting-fact:
 Source
 CRY
 A LOT
 TRY
 NOT TO CRY
 LIE
 DOWN
 holy shit dude
 If you don't know Alex, I suggest you read up on him. Because yeah,
 sure, any parrot can mimic, but Alex was one of the first to prove on
 many occasions that he understood the meaning behind the words he
 said
 With that in mind, just think about what he said for a sec. Alex had to
 understand on some level that death means leaving. That's fucking
 mindblowing.
 Alex also was shown to have the intelligence of a young child, anywhere from 3
 to 5 years old. He could do basic addition and subtraction, and independently
 taught himself the concept of zero (something that most CIVILIZATIONS
 couldn't do!) He had a vocabulary of thousands of words, some of which he
 made up himself, and had deep interpersonal bonds with many scientists and
 trainers, as well as other parrots.
 Alex the parrot is basically the coolest bird ever
 animals are often smarter than you think. There is/was a gorilla they taught sign
 language to. And one day she asked for a kitten. they gave her a stuffed animal but she
 signed sad. She wanted a real one. She was allowed to choose one from a litter.
 She named it All Ball and she loved it
 Except one day All Ball escaped from the cage and was hit by a car. And this shows you
 just how much animals can understand. They signed what had happened but didn't
 think the gorilla would understand. But she started making weeping, howling/crying
 sounds and the signs for bad, sad, etc.
 And then "Sleep, cat". She understood death.
 She's had two kittens since then
 Animals understand more than you think. Depends on the animal, yes.
Animals are incredible

Animals are incredible

80s, Adam Driver, and Adam Sandler: NO ONE WILL WATCH THIS No ONE WANTS7 /S UL JUL CARES FOA THIS its-bewitched: trilllizard666: keyhollow:Story matters more than sex, please always remember that. what’s funniest about this comic, I think, is the wildly inconsistent success or complete lack of in the properties and the vast, wild differences between how they were received in the run up to the premier of them as artistic/entertainment propertiesFiegbusters/Ghostbusters 2016 had a PR run that was mostly defined by a weird antagonism where they said detractors are just manbaby basement dwellers that hate women, along with pretty badly done trailers that people compared to Pixels. Remember Pixels? That awful Adam Sandler REMEMBER THE 80S vehicle/scam? That said, unlike Pixels, this Ghostbusters failed to make money. It flopped. It flopped terribly. So Strawman McGee was actually right, Nobody DID Watch This, besides weirdoes that used Holtzmann reaction gifs for a month and kept saying how gay they were for two of the lady Ghostbusters.Star Wars: The Force Awakens was a huge runaway box office success with people excited to see it, even though a lot of people were critical of Rey and how boring she was as a character, in comparison to Finn and Poe, who had a lot more interesting going on with their characters, respectively, and people were excited to see The Last Jedi. Then came the sequel. It was…still a financial box office success, but it was extremely divisive among Star Wars fans and any group of critics that aren’t deeply entrenched “establishment” film critics. And there’s rumors abound it wasn’t quite AS much a box office success as Disney would like, which along with Solo flopping, seems to have resulted in Disney pulling back their Star Wars output a little tiny bit. Possibly.Literally all the reasons that people were apprehensive about Wonder Woman pre-release were all reasons unrelated to her being a woman. She’s one of the most important DC superheroes, a founding member of almost all incarnations of the Justice League, and Frank Miller himself has called part of The Trinity of DC, along with Superman and Batman. People were apprehensive of a Wonder Woman film because almost all the previous attempts to bring Wonder Woman to film or TV have been some sort of disaster, from the Joss Whedon script that leaked that everyone took the absolute piss out of (which had a seriously troubled production that led to the Wonder Woman film we eventually got), to the horrible pilot that makes Wonder Woman into a bizarrely inconsistent crazed murderer. People were apprehensive of a Wonder Woman film because it was part of the badly executed DCEU, with the previous films before this including BvS and Suicide Squad, which were critically SAVAGED. People were looking at a Wonder Woman and dreading it cause they were like “oh god not another one of these fucking awful films”. and then Justice League afterwards was total dogshit. and yeah, there was a bit of controversy about Gal Gadot, but that’s from a mixture of people not being sure she could actually act well enough because she was mostly a model and was in a Fast and Furious film before this, and because she is a proud IDF member, which is kinda controversial because of all the baggage that comes with what the Israeli military frequently does in terms of war crimes. (granted, she was only ever in a non combat role when she served in the military, but come on, this website gave Adam Driver shit for joining the USMC and not doing anything combat related before he got a medical discharge cause he broke his collarbone lmao). it had nothing to do with being a woman.Literally nobody cares about She-Ra except for weirdoes into it, like the beanmouth manchildren animation adherents or the people that uniroically think SJWs are killing everything, and it’s a cheaply made Netflix show. You’d have to almost try on purpose to not make any money from a Netflix show with a low/modest budget. Also I know a few families with young girls and young boys and nobody I know seems to remotely give a shit about the reboot She-Ra. It’s all weird teenagers, shippers, and the type of people that send death threats for people drawing boobs while beating meat to the catgirl in it getting with the main character.Captain Marvel is a box office success and reviewing decently well, but even the critics that like it are leveling criticisms towards how badly shot and done some of the fight scenes and long shots are, and a popular sentient is a lot of the fights have it so that it’s almost impossible to tell what’s happening, which isn’t a criticism unique to Captain Marvel. However, most people that were unthrilled about Captain Marvel before launch…Thought the trailer looked boring (gosh, that’s familiar), or were people raising an eyebrow at how the film’s basically Air Force propaganda. And it’s probably worth saying here, Captain Marvel, or Carol Danvers just isn’t that popular a character and isn’t popular in comics at all. Marvel flagrantly kept trying to astroturf her into an A lister position after they realized they had (at the time), sold off the film rights to a majority of the popular female characters. Most all their popular heroes and anti-heroes and villains that were female are in the X-Men, which was owned by Fox, or in other films in other studios. Cue the pre-Disney buyout reboot of her. Which flopped as a solo title, by the way. Notice how almost all the stuff with Ms Marvel/Danvers Captain Marvel that does well has her as a MEMBER or a side character. She’s a C-level character that came into existence, pre-retcon, because a superpowered Kree’s DNA got mixed with hers in an explosion. She was an emergency replacement, out of universe because of the Captain Marvel DC/Marvel clusterfuck and lawsuits. She’s less a character, and more a device. And this also easily fits under the “needlessly, weirdly antagonistic PR umbrella”nobody that can string together more than a comprehensible sentence does not dislike this things cause there’s women in it, trust me lmao The issue with captain marvel is RT deleting up to 50k reviews from fans that dislike the film. The headlines are “Brie Larson defeats internet trolls!” Calling fans trolls sure does a lot to discourage them from getting into a movie.
80s, Adam Driver, and Adam Sandler: NO ONE WILL WATCH THIS
 No ONE WANTS7
 /S
 UL JUL
 CARES FOA
 THIS
its-bewitched:

trilllizard666:

keyhollow:Story matters more than sex, please always remember that. 
what’s funniest about this comic, I think, is the wildly inconsistent success or complete lack of in the properties and the vast, wild differences between how they were received in the run up to the premier of them as artistic/entertainment propertiesFiegbusters/Ghostbusters 2016 had a PR run that was mostly defined by a weird antagonism where they said detractors are just manbaby basement dwellers that hate women, along with pretty badly done trailers that people compared to Pixels. Remember Pixels? That awful Adam Sandler REMEMBER THE 80S vehicle/scam? That said, unlike Pixels, this Ghostbusters failed to make money. It flopped. It flopped terribly. So Strawman McGee was actually right, Nobody DID Watch This, besides weirdoes that used Holtzmann reaction gifs for a month and kept saying how gay they were for two of the lady Ghostbusters.Star Wars: The Force Awakens was a huge runaway box office success with people excited to see it, even though a lot of people were critical of Rey and how boring she was as a character, in comparison to Finn and Poe, who had a lot more interesting going on with their characters, respectively, and people were excited to see The Last Jedi. Then came the sequel. It was…still a financial box office success, but it was extremely divisive among Star Wars fans and any group of critics that aren’t deeply entrenched “establishment” film critics. And there’s rumors abound it wasn’t quite AS much a box office success as Disney would like, which along with Solo flopping, seems to have resulted in Disney pulling back their Star Wars output a little tiny bit. Possibly.Literally all the reasons that people were apprehensive about Wonder Woman pre-release were all reasons unrelated to her being a woman. She’s one of the most important DC superheroes, a founding member of almost all incarnations of the Justice League, and Frank Miller himself has called part of The Trinity of DC, along with Superman and Batman. People were apprehensive of a Wonder Woman film because almost all the previous attempts to bring Wonder Woman to film or TV have been some sort of disaster, from the Joss Whedon script that leaked that everyone took the absolute piss out of (which had a seriously troubled production that led to the Wonder Woman film we eventually got), to the horrible pilot that makes Wonder Woman into a bizarrely inconsistent crazed murderer. People were apprehensive of a Wonder Woman film because it was part of the badly executed DCEU, with the previous films before this including BvS and Suicide Squad, which were critically SAVAGED. People were looking at a Wonder Woman and dreading it cause they were like “oh god not another one of these fucking awful films”. and then Justice League afterwards was total dogshit. and yeah, there was a bit of controversy about Gal Gadot, but that’s from a mixture of people not being sure she could actually act well enough because she was mostly a model and was in a Fast and Furious film before this, and because she is a proud IDF member, which is kinda controversial because of all the baggage that comes with what the Israeli military frequently does in terms of war crimes. (granted, she was only ever in a non combat role when she served in the military, but come on, this website gave Adam Driver shit for joining the USMC and not doing anything combat related before he got a medical discharge cause he broke his collarbone lmao). it had nothing to do with being a woman.Literally nobody cares about She-Ra except for weirdoes into it, like the beanmouth manchildren animation adherents or the people that uniroically think SJWs are killing everything, and it’s a cheaply made Netflix show. You’d have to almost try on purpose to not make any money from a Netflix show with a low/modest budget. Also I know a few families with young girls and young boys and nobody I know seems to remotely give a shit about the reboot She-Ra. It’s all weird teenagers, shippers, and the type of people that send death threats for people drawing boobs while beating meat to the catgirl in it getting with the main character.Captain Marvel is a box office success and reviewing decently well, but even the critics that like it are leveling criticisms towards how badly shot and done some of the fight scenes and long shots are, and a popular sentient is a lot of the fights have it so that it’s almost impossible to tell what’s happening, which isn’t a criticism unique to Captain Marvel. However, most people that were unthrilled about Captain Marvel before launch…Thought the trailer looked boring (gosh, that’s familiar), or were people raising an eyebrow at how the film’s basically Air Force propaganda. And it’s probably worth saying here, Captain Marvel, or Carol Danvers just isn’t that popular a character and isn’t popular in comics at all. Marvel flagrantly kept trying to astroturf her into an A lister position after they realized they had (at the time), sold off the film rights to a majority of the popular female characters. Most all their popular heroes and anti-heroes and villains that were female are in the X-Men, which was owned by Fox, or in other films in other studios. Cue the pre-Disney buyout reboot of her. Which flopped as a solo title, by the way. Notice how almost all the stuff with Ms Marvel/Danvers Captain Marvel that does well has her as a MEMBER or a side character. She’s a C-level character that came into existence, pre-retcon, because a superpowered Kree’s DNA got mixed with hers in an explosion. She was an emergency replacement, out of universe because of the Captain Marvel DC/Marvel clusterfuck and lawsuits. She’s less a character, and more a device. And this also easily fits under the “needlessly, weirdly antagonistic PR umbrella”nobody that can string together more than a comprehensible sentence does not dislike this things cause there’s women in it, trust me lmao

The issue with captain marvel is RT deleting up to 50k reviews from fans that dislike the film. The headlines are “Brie Larson defeats internet trolls!” Calling fans trolls sure does a lot to discourage them from getting into a movie.

its-bewitched: trilllizard666: keyhollow:Story matters more than sex, please always remember that. what’s funniest about this comic, I th...