DarthEnderX

Man, that email about the toilet water behind the mask has me imagining a Mario level where there's a Phanto on the wall, and when you pick up the key and he starts to chase you, water comes pouring into the room from behind where he was, and in order to escape the room, you have to swim around holding the key avoiding the Phanto until the room fills up with water enough for you to escape through the roof. Too bad a bunch of those things aren't in Mario Maker.

On the subject of King's Quest and what it means and whatnot, I don't know much about the new upcoming game, but the original King's Quest was about the King sending you, one of his knights to reclaim 3 stolen treasures of the kingdom. Which, upon your return, he makes you the King and then promptly dies. And one of the treasures was held by a dragon. So I'm curious if maybe the new game isn't some kind of retelling of the first King's Quest game. The thing I always liked most about that game was how the manual for it actually had this really long(for a game manual) story that described, like, the entire life of the King and how he kept fucking up and losing each of the kingdom's treasures. And how, in the end, he basically has to turn to you to fix his mistakes. He's quite the tragic character, this titular King of King's Quest.

I don't understand all the hate for Knuckles new look. He basically has the same proportions as young Mr. Incredible.

I was thinking about that exact same thing during this discussion. Before seeing that movie, I never even noticed that the Batmans were always wearing that makeup. Now I can't not see it. Fitting, since Nick Cage is basically doing an Adam West imitation in that movie.

Exactly this. Street Fighter too.

This. It was an amusing bit. But it turns out the reality of those game's actual names is even more ridiculous than the joke. That full name appears on the box and cartridge and everything.

I love it when she does the accent. She sounds like Janine from Ghostbusters.

That sort of implies that the ONLY reason anyone would ever watch something like Song of the South would be to see the racism. There are other things going on in the movie, and other reasons a person might watch it. So it's somewhat impossible to judgeif the "sole reason" you'd make money off it is that it's offensive or not. Ideally yes. But the simple fact of the matter is that corporations are motivated by what makes them money. If they aren't going to make money off of something, they'll generally simply not do it instead. You might convince them to split profits with charity, but all profits to charity just means they won't bother.

I don't really agree with the notion of "Should the really be reproducing that in this day and age though?" Like I've said before, I'm of the opinion that all art, even offensive art, deserves to exist. If you whitewash over everything that doesn't seem appropriate by today's standards, then, in 50 years, when what's considered appropriate will be completely different from what it is today, everything we do now will get whitewashed from history in the future as well. I think preserving history is important, even the unpleasant parts. And the idea that we shouldn't because "Well, someone might see that and agree with it.", as if someone would happen across some 50 year old movie and be introduced to the concept of racism by it and suddenly think "Well, that seems just fine to me." is kinda ridiculous. As though we can remove racism from the world by hiding all previous examples of it. Anyone who identifies with weird ol' timey racism was PROBABLY already racist to begin with.

So are none of the Idle Thumbs guys aware that there is a new Bugs Bunny show currently running on television now? Granted, it's nothing like the old cartoons(it's actually like this weirdly mundane sit-com, and what little there is, is generally portrayed as taking place inside a character's head), but it doesn't really play into that image that they think the character represents currently either.

I doubt he really cares. He made a separate account to say something he thought might get him banned, and it totally did, but he still got to say what he wanted. So it pretty much did exactly what he intended it to.

I loved that cartoon as a kid. It sucked that they never brought more than 13 episodes to America. I kept hoping each time they got to Najima Tower that there'd be a new episode the next week, but nope. Back to the start... And I completely agree with that. I am in NO WAY suggesting that that sort of inaction is okay, or that that reasoning excuses that behavior. I'm simply arguing against Merus' stated reasoning for why people do it. I don't think the cause is the same thing he does.

If you really want me to give your argument more of a response then I thought it warrented, then fine. I think that your assertion that "what would cause a person who is fundamentally against date-rape to allow one to occur" is a result of some sort of ingrained societal misogyny can be far more easily explained as a simple desire to avoid confrontation. Lots of people don't speak out against things that bother them, not because society has convinced them that it's okay, but because they don't wish to be involved in the resulting conflict.

Given that I made other responses to other parts of his post, I think it should be fairly obvious that that's not what I did. *sigh* now I have to Google holistically. I'm not new. I made a post in April. It was about South Park or something... And you succeeded. But a thorough explanation of the joke will only increase people's enjoyment of it.

Well, he's the one making that argument. But alright.