Luftmensch

I’m starting a fundraising campaign to help me do an animated short: at: http://igg.me/at/ssrids Ssrids will be a sort of animated sketch journal, animated in hand-drawn 2D. It will be a short film, roughly between five and ten minutes, covering the weeks after I stopped taking sertraline. It's just something that I really want to make and that maybe means a good deal to me personally, and I really hope that it connects with other people. I hope this clicks with you folk, keep being cool.

I was at Staples today and came upon the bargain PC shelf. I found this little gem right on the top row.

Then you're objecting to something I also disagree with, which also happens not to be what I'm talking about or what the concept even means by any definitions I've found so far.

a.) wrong, because dismissing buzzwords for being loaded and incapable of allowing neutral discussion is not the same thing as dismissing an entire social activist stance off-hand to insult people I don't like. That's on the same level as calling Al Qaeda members Muslim Camelfuckers (but it's different, I hear you retort) b.) good, you're at least thinking about it, even if you're still making up reasons to justify your visceral reaction. You're literally saying that caring about and addressing anything that isn't being "systematically oppressed" (because apparently we live in a society with so few problems that we have to put bad pay and shitty media representation on the same level as being shipped to the gulag) is bullshit. Anyhow, I'll check out the link Argo, sounds worth reading.

You can buy that cut, Gilliam himself said he thought it was pretty good. Arguably, that's just a different happy ending.

That kind of reminds me of Gilliam's happy ending to Brazil: The hero retreats from the horrific real world into the isolated bliss of his own insanity.

That's kind of the status of this thread on the money situation. Nobody's actually defending the money critique in this thread anymore (except maybe Stalin). Jake poking in to wax eloquent kind of feels like if Superman dropped down from the heavens right now to deliver a speech about the problem with eugenics. It's cool to get his attention but its kind of not a thing anymore.

I think you're vastly, vastly overestimating the scruitiny the two words actually got. The way I saw it, 90% of the talk about the phrase was a meta-discussion about whether its even valid to criticize the word choice. The intimate attention to "regressive crap" was in support of defending a completely benign opinion ("I didn't like the sudden gear change") from a really aggressive retaliation ("who are you to criticize FemFreq?"). Look at the thread. This isn't about her anymore.

Its because he internalized pernicious lies perpetuated by a post-colonial society. Alright, challenge accepted. If you want to play word games, no, I can't say that there's a true "objective" standard of quality writing. But there's lots of good reasons for using a consistent tone, and it is basically common knowledge and common practice.

I take from your evasiveness that we're in agreement: No, noone was criticizing her for having emotions. I also agree that the grounds for the style critique are debatable. (oh yeah: In before tone police! There's another shitty buzzword for you)

By writing 101, I mean it's an elementary guideline. It can and should be broken. With skill. Which I don't think it was here.

I actually haven't seen a single post on this thread criticizing Sarkeesian for having an opinion. Not one. If you can find one, pull it up and I'll retract my statement. Every single comment I read criticizing the phrase "regressive crap" is critiquing the sudden change in tone. That's style 101, pick a tone and stick with it, you don't decide to start being an opinion piece after 10 pages of objective analysis. I for one wish she was willing to express her opinions more openly throughout.

People are still talking about the budget? Cripes.

That literally has nothing to do with what I said. That's fair, like I said it's an arbitrary metric so I'm not going to defend it. I'm not sure we're on the same page about what I was saying though.

Honestly, I feel like the discussion is about the stereotype. There were one or two members who actually sincerely thought the video was complete bullshit and was totally wrong, which you'll always have. But 95% of the conversation is people arguing over whether it's even fair to criticize the video at all. It's a recursive hype machine. I mentioned earlier in the thread, nobody's talking about her argument because nobody seems to think it's worth talking about. A standard metric I use to judge the value of a film (and I know this is arbitrary but bear with me) is when I go to the movies with friends or family, what do we talk about on the ride home? If we talk about the film itself, home run, it's thought provoking, and perpetuated itself for an additional 20-40 minutes. If we talk about basically anything else, then blah, it was a couple hours worth of entertainment and that's it. The fact that 10 pages of argument rose up over inconsistent tone I think both is a product of the recursive hype machine I mentioned above, and the fact that the content of the video isn't thought provoking in itself. Which many of you argue wasn't it's purpose, so whatever.