This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - πΊπππππ
πͺππππ
Pages: 1 ... 205206207 208209 ... 1000
6181
« on: November 25, 2016, 03:56:08 PM »
you're literally switching two buttons around, so that the buttons on your posts line up with the buttons on everyone else's
they ARE lined up with everyone else's, is what i'm saying
they're coded to be in a specific order, and it doesn't change--it just doesn't appear that way when you're logged in
this isn't difficult
then code them fucking differently if like goes before report, then edit should go before report
6182
« on: November 25, 2016, 03:51:15 PM »
Exactly. And the thing that changes (like to edit, you can't like your own posts and you can't edit someone else's) are equivalents. They should be in the same position. Just like report, reply, and quote should be in the same positions following that.
But then that would leave a big gap wouldn't it? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this.
how would it leave a gap you're literally switching two buttons around, so that the buttons on your posts line up with the buttons on everyone else's what Verbatim said was like completely off topic to what I said, I don't even get what he's trying to say
6183
« on: November 25, 2016, 03:49:07 PM »
>you will never be a pedo for a cartoon
Damn this feels good.
ideally, my bully would be the same age as me
there's a reason I said "a Lucy" instead of just "Lucy"
I get that you want to be a kid again with a much smaller wee wee, spare me the details.
no I mean a 20 y/o person who's a Lucy Lucy is a personality type more than a character
6184
« on: November 25, 2016, 03:38:16 PM »
Just cut off your dick already
working on it >you will never be a pedo for a cartoon
Damn this feels good.
ideally, my bully would be the same age as me there's a reason I said "a Lucy" instead of just "Lucy"
6185
« on: November 25, 2016, 03:27:13 PM »
Actually it would be like being an insurgent or political dissident in hiding, you only own slaves to keep in line with social norms, while taking actions to abolish it in secrecy.
You're telling me the Founding Fathers kept slaves because they had the insecurity levels of a 14 year old?
Washington and Jefferson had slaves because they both owned farmland. It was an innocuous, expected thing to do at the time. As they progressed as thinkers and philosophers, they realized the institution was wrong, fought against it, and eventually freed their slaves. Not to mention the majority of founding fathers didn't even own slaves in the first place. This shouldn't be hard.
6186
« on: November 25, 2016, 03:23:58 PM »
 no one to bully you and make you miserable just for fun why live
6187
« on: November 25, 2016, 02:58:26 PM »
I've heard of literally one of those bands.
so you've either never heard of The Smiths or never heard of Radiohead either option is just as bad
6188
« on: November 25, 2016, 02:56:12 PM »
The constitution was written by white landowning men for white landowning men. Everyone else can fuck off.
Not really. There's a reason tyranny of the majority was such a feared concept in the founding fathers' mind. They were looking out for all races, and nearly all of them opposed slavery.
Right. That's why women couldn't vote and why counting niggers as three fifths of a person was a compromise.
Right, because the founding fathers weren't the ones with all of the power. Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, Burr, etc all opposed slavery and felt that minorities deserved all the rights of whites. But they didn't comprise all of congress, and the vast majority of congressmen were conservative southerns or southern sympathizers.
Now, all of the founding fathers but Burr were male-focused, that's where you're right. But I'm more talking about race.
You can't be anti-slavery and a slave owner.
Which is why all of the slaveholding founders eventually released their slaves. Hamilton, Madison, and Burr didn't even have them, anyway.
6189
« on: November 25, 2016, 02:55:28 PM »
The constitution was written by white landowning men for white landowning men. Everyone else can fuck off.
Not really. There's a reason tyranny of the majority was such a feared concept in the founding fathers' mind. They were looking out for all races, and nearly all of them opposed slavery.
"Fuck niggers" - George Washington
ROFL xD
6190
« on: November 25, 2016, 02:54:02 PM »
The constitution was written by white landowning men for white landowning men. Everyone else can fuck off.
Not really. There's a reason tyranny of the majority was such a feared concept in the founding fathers' mind. They were looking out for all races, and nearly all of them opposed slavery.
Right. That's why women couldn't vote and why counting niggers as three fifths of a person was a compromise.
Right, because the founding fathers weren't the ones with all of the power. Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, Burr, etc all opposed slavery and felt that minorities deserved all the rights of whites. But they didn't comprise all of congress, and the vast majority of congressmen were conservative southerns or southern sympathizers. Now, all of the founding fathers but Burr were male-focused, that's where you're right. But I'm more talking about race.
6191
« on: November 25, 2016, 02:45:34 PM »
The constitution was written by white landowning men for white landowning men. Everyone else can fuck off.
Not really. There's a reason tyranny of the majority was such a feared concept in the founding fathers' mind. They were looking out for all races, and nearly all of them opposed slavery.
6192
« on: November 25, 2016, 02:43:58 PM »
But anyway, it's okay to be a tinfoiler if you're on the democrats' side.
Are you kidding? Those are the tinfoilers people hate the most. There's a reason my anti-GMO character was so effective.
6193
« on: November 25, 2016, 12:53:35 PM »
6194
« on: November 25, 2016, 12:15:07 PM »
is patrick stewart still in these new x men movies or what
6195
« on: November 25, 2016, 11:41:51 AM »
Report button is pretty much there to lock your own thread, or to turn yourself in to the Sep7agon police.
are you missing the point of this thread
look at the purple line
it should be straight
it doesn't work like that
the buttons are in a set order: Like, Report, Edit, Reply, Quote
you can't edit other people's posts unless you're a mod, so for anyone but mods, the "edit" button is removed
you also can't like your own posts, so for all posts but your own, the like button stays
the order literally doesn't change at all; certain buttons just get removed depending on your perspective
Exactly. And the thing that changes (like to edit, you can't like your own posts and you can't edit someone else's) are equivalents. They should be in the same position. Just like report, reply, and quote should be in the same positions following that.
6196
« on: November 25, 2016, 11:20:26 AM »
Report button is pretty much there to lock your own thread, or to turn yourself in to the Sep7agon police.
are you missing the point of this thread look at the purple line it should be straight
6197
« on: November 24, 2016, 03:00:37 PM »
I'm not calling it anything though, lrn2propositional logic and model theory. IF the criteria is met THEN criticism applies, it's up to you to determine IF it's met, because the only thing I know about Hamilton is that it's about a guy called Hamilton.
The criteria is that it has to be entertaining, because that's the goal of the work and what the creator promised. It has no obligation to be historically accurate whatsoever.
You realize this is another topic entirely right? Anyway that's a pretty low brow approach to take to media, you may as well just jack off all day if you only care for "entertainment". And that's really not an exaggeration, pornography has exactly one purpose (entertainment) with no extraneous details to it, and it's degenerate garbage because of it.
That's the only true purpose of media - entertainment. You can teach, you can inspire, you can sadden. But if your work isn't also entertaining, it's failed as a piece of media. That's not low-brow, that's how it works. You want to learn and not be entertained, go to a college lecture.
6198
« on: November 24, 2016, 02:53:05 PM »
Um, duh? It's a casual, entertaining musical. If someone is going around calling themselves a history buff because they saw the play, they're a retard. Again, not the fault of Hamilton.
It's the lot of them though, the ignorant masses realize they still don't know jack shit compared to the person they looked down upon so they use it as an excuse to take away the only level playing field he or she had.
Then say "I hate the Hamilton fandom". That would be a legitimate and understandable criticism. The fans a work garners has no bearing on the work itself.
6199
« on: November 24, 2016, 02:51:42 PM »
I'm not calling it anything though, lrn2propositional logic and model theory. IF the criteria is met THEN criticism applies, it's up to you to determine IF it's met, because the only thing I know about Hamilton is that it's about a guy called Hamilton.
The criteria is that it has to be entertaining, because that's the goal of the work and what the creator promised. It has no obligation to be historically accurate whatsoever.
6200
« on: November 24, 2016, 02:44:52 PM »
There is an argument to be made that influential media has a responsibility to not deceive it's audience with it's influence.
And Hamilton didn't. It would be deception if Lin Manuel Miranda claimed his work was historically accurate, but time and time again he's stated that it's the opposite of that.
Meh, there's not much point in saying you're going to do one thing, and then inadvertently doing the opposite. Again, I'm not interested in defending idiots from themselves, but saying "I didn't mean to be deceptive" isn't a defense for being deceptive.
Course, I'm speaking generally here, I've never even heard of Hamilton before this week and have no interest in learning about it.
Except he didn't fucking do the opposite. His goal was to tell a deeply fictionalized and romanticized version of the story, and that's what he did. He has no obligation to make his intentionally fictionalized play some completely truthful biopic any more than the guy who wrote Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter does.
I'm really not trying to debate about a play I've never seen. The point I'm making is a general one. IF an artist says he'll do one thing, and then IF they do something else, THEN their initial statement isn't really a defense of their later action.
IF Hamilton is historically deceptive then this applies, IF it isn't, then it doesn't.
It's not fucking deceptive, because the purpose of the play IS NOT to be historically accurate. The purpose is to be entertaining. If the play wasn't entertaining but super accurate, THEN it would be deceptive. You don't run around calling Epic Rap Battles of History or the Spongebob episode where they go to the stone age deceiving because they're inaccurate. Jesus Christ. I will admit this is mostly anecdotal, but that's not how the fans I've come across see it. In fact, you're the first to say otherwise.
Hamilton isn't a serious adaptation, not by a long shot. If I had to put it between Vampire Lincoln and Day-Lewis Lincoln in terms of intentions and role, it would be much closer to the former.
Seems you misunderstood the entire point of the play. It's goal is to entertain; make you laugh, cry, and stay on the edge of your seat. Not to teach. Then you're talking to the wrong "fans" who skew and mischaracterize Miranda's whole point for making the musical.
6201
« on: November 24, 2016, 02:41:57 PM »
It's normie-bait bastardizing shit I got picked on for liking back in high school, of course I'm going to be angry at people who hate history suddenly calling themselves history buffs.
Your reasoning for hating Hamilton is fucking retarded, and has nothing to do with the play itself. Um, duh? It's a casual, entertaining musical. If someone is going around calling themselves a history buff because they saw the play, they're a retard. Again, not the fault of Hamilton.
6202
« on: November 24, 2016, 02:40:22 PM »
Yes really. How often do we get serious adaptions of history where accuracy isn't taken into account other than Hamilton?
Not really. And even if that was the case, that doesn't mean everyone has to follow the status quo. Hamilton isn't a serious adaptation, not by a long shot. If I had to put it between Vampire Lincoln and Day-Lewis Lincoln in terms of intentions and role, it would be much closer to the former. Seems you misunderstood the entire point of the play. It's goal is to entertain; make you laugh, cry, and stay on the edge of your seat. Not to teach.
6203
« on: November 24, 2016, 02:37:47 PM »
Everyone who has to put up with dumbasses that tout it as fact.
Who gives a fuck? He did his part, and you can't hold it against him or the play without being as moronic as those who take it as fact. Boo fucking hoo. Everyone has to put up with dumbasses. I hate the assholes who pretend Walter White is some misunderstood hero, but that doesn't mean I'm going to hate the source material. Your reasoning for hating Hamilton is fucking retarded, and has nothing to do with the play itself.
6204
« on: November 24, 2016, 02:35:37 PM »
There is an argument to be made that influential media has a responsibility to not deceive it's audience with it's influence.
And Hamilton didn't. It would be deception if Lin Manuel Miranda claimed his work was historically accurate, but time and time again he's stated that it's the opposite of that.
Meh, there's not much point in saying you're going to do one thing, and then inadvertently doing the opposite. Again, I'm not interested in defending idiots from themselves, but saying "I didn't mean to be deceptive" isn't a defense for being deceptive.
Course, I'm speaking generally here, I've never even heard of Hamilton before this week and have no interest in learning about it.
Except he didn't fucking do the opposite. His goal was to tell a deeply fictionalized and romanticized version of the story, and that's what he did. He has no obligation to make his intentionally fictionalized play some completely truthful biopic any more than the guy who wrote Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter does. The problem here is that most adaptions go out of their way to be accurate, not embellish it.
If you watch ANY historical adaptation and believe that what was presented to you was the complete truth, you're a moron. That's not the fault of the adaptation. Not really. And even if that was the case, that doesn't mean everyone has to follow the status quo.
6205
« on: November 24, 2016, 02:32:24 PM »
The fact that he has to say it more than once means no one's listening to that fact.
And Hamilton didn't. It would be deception if Lin Manuel Miranda claimed his work was historically accurate, but time and time again he's stated that it's the opposite of that. Who gives a fuck? He did his part, and you can't hold it against him or the play without being as moronic as those who take it as fact.
6206
« on: November 24, 2016, 02:31:29 PM »
Vampire Hunter is balls to the walls over the top to the point that you can tell it's full of shit, it's also common sense that vampires don't fucking exist.
The problem is the Hamilton cast may even say they're taking liberties but how often do you hear that? You still have mindless masses eating it up believing everything in the script and then they go and tout their knowledge of the founding father. Not many people bother to look into this shit past high school and only at a college level will you find these true facts, so this will be passed off as common knowledge.
And who gives a shit if people think that Angelica was into Alexander? That's on them, not the play. If people thought that Lincoln actually hunted vampires, would that be the fault of that movie? No, because it never claimed it was historically accurate, and neither did Hamilton. And that's on them, for believing that an obviously fictionalized version of the Hamilton story is some kind of biographical history lesson. LMM set out to tell a good story, not one that's true to what happened. If you watch ANY historical adaptation and believe that what was presented to you was the complete truth, you're a moron. That's not the fault of the adaptation.
6207
« on: November 24, 2016, 02:28:31 PM »
There is an argument to be made that influential media has a responsibility to not deceive it's audience with it's influence.
And Hamilton didn't. It would be deception if Lin Manuel Miranda claimed his work was historically accurate, but time and time again he's stated that it's the opposite of that.
6208
« on: November 24, 2016, 02:23:05 PM »
no one gives a shit about historical accuracy holy shit
stop being autistic
it's just a heartbreaking, catchy musical
I bet you think the movie where Lincoln was a vampire hunter was better than the Oscar winning Lincoln.
Caring about historical accuracy this much is pretty fucking dumb--especially when it's not TRYING to be historically accurate.
that said i have no idea if hamilton is trying to be historically accurate
Historical accuracy is important because then we have dip shits running around thinking Angelica Schuyler really did lust after Hamilton.
I don't. Lincoln with Daniel Day-Lewis was far better, because of the acting, cinematography, direction, cohesion, etc. The fact that it was historically accurate is meaningless. And who gives a shit if people think that Angelica was into Alexander? That's on them, not the play. If people thought that Lincoln actually hunted vampires, would that be the fault of that movie? No, because it never claimed it was historically accurate, and neither did Hamilton.
6209
« on: November 24, 2016, 01:55:55 PM »
>The more inaccurate the song is the better it is
This is a tragedy, to both music and history.
Caring about historical accuracy this much is pretty fucking dumb--especially when it's not TRYING to be historically accurate.
that said i have no idea if hamilton is trying to be historically accurate
it's not LMM has openly admitted that telling a good narrative was his goal with the musical, and that he took many liberties to make that happen, and have the Burr/Hamilton relationship be as gripping as possible Ian is just being pedantic and autistic, as usual he thinks every historical adaptation is shit unless it's completely accurate like dude go watch a documentary
6210
« on: November 24, 2016, 01:51:18 PM »
>The more inaccurate the song is the better it is
This is a tragedy, to both music and history.
you have no soul that's like one of the best songs no one gives a shit about historical accuracy holy shit stop being autistic it's just a heartbreaking, catchy musical
Pages: 1 ... 205206207 208209 ... 1000
|
Show Posts
