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 ... 1001
6181
« on: November 25, 2016, 04:47:46 PM »
>circlejerking over conventionally shitty movies
HAHA YEAH WOW I SAW BATTLEFIELD EARTH THE OETHR DAY, IT WAS SOOOOOOOO BAD xDDDDD
I HAVE THE SAFEST AND MOST AGREEABLE OPINIONS EVER, PLEASE VALIDATE ME
reminds me of this, aka the best K&P skit
6182
« on: November 25, 2016, 04:45:20 PM »
Way to take one of Classes already weird, Sexual Frustration induced threads and make it even creepier
wanting people to be mean to you isn't creepy
6183
« on: November 25, 2016, 04:41:04 PM »
literally what lmao
I have no sexual attraction to the character Lucy Van Pelt from Charlie Brown
I have a social/sexual attraction to the bossy, bullying personality type she displays. Hence why the title is "you will never have a Lucy in your life"
jesus christ man, this really isn't a hard concept to grasp
I know man, I'm just taking a dig at you because it's easy to see this thread as you admitting to being a lolicon.
maybe if you're a retard
No, I'm just admitting that when I hear the words "bully" and "cartoon girl", my mind jumps to "lolis".
is that a trope or something? I'm not familiar
it would kinda make sense though, a lot of young grade school-ish girls have the bullying, dominant personality type and that kinda gets weeded out later as the "wrong" personality to have as a girl
pretty fucked up
It's a trope that goes either way, and it's implicitly lewd, hence the dig. I fully expected someone like you to be into it though.
no, I prefer mature, bitchy lawyerish types of people
like Lydia from Breaking Bad or Azula. The latter is technically 14, but she looks and acts like a 25 year old dominantrix. Kind of the opposite of the "technically 100, but looks and acts like a 10 year old" trope.
Oh, so you're into the "Ara Ara" Christmas cake kind of thing? That's a pretty good fit for a masochist and more normal than the other option.
Just had to look that up Buying a cake for Christmas is a Japanese tradition. But these cakes have a definite expiration date β no one wants to eat Christmas cake after December 25th. And no matter how attractive a woman is, it's said, no Japanese male will want to marry her after she's 25. Thus, "Christmas Cake" is used as a metaphor term for a woman rendered unmarriageable because she is past the freshness of her youth. That's so fucked up. It sickens me that this is an actual phenomenon in Japan. Fuck that country in general. But yeah, the ideal age range in my eyes is 20-35. I'm not really into anyone in their 40s/50s, but depending on the person, cougars can be really appealing.
6184
« on: November 25, 2016, 04:33:57 PM »
literally what lmao
I have no sexual attraction to the character Lucy Van Pelt from Charlie Brown
I have a social/sexual attraction to the bossy, bullying personality type she displays. Hence why the title is "you will never have a Lucy in your life"
jesus christ man, this really isn't a hard concept to grasp
I know man, I'm just taking a dig at you because it's easy to see this thread as you admitting to being a lolicon.
maybe if you're a retard
No, I'm just admitting that when I hear the words "bully" and "cartoon girl", my mind jumps to "lolis".
is that a trope or something? I'm not familiar
it would kinda make sense though, a lot of young grade school-ish girls have the bullying, dominant personality type and that kinda gets weeded out later as the "wrong" personality to have as a girl
pretty fucked up
It's a trope that goes either way, and it's implicitly lewd, hence the dig. I fully expected someone like you to be into it though.
no, I prefer mature, bitchy lawyerish types of people like Lydia from Breaking Bad or Azula. The latter is technically 14, but she looks and acts like a 25 year old dominantrix. Kind of the opposite of the "technically 100, but looks and acts like a 10 year old" trope.
6185
« on: November 25, 2016, 04:28:35 PM »
parts unknown
lmao
6186
« on: November 25, 2016, 04:22:33 PM »
literally what lmao
I have no sexual attraction to the character Lucy Van Pelt from Charlie Brown
I have a social/sexual attraction to the bossy, bullying personality type she displays. Hence why the title is "you will never have a Lucy in your life"
jesus christ man, this really isn't a hard concept to grasp
I know man, I'm just taking a dig at you because it's easy to see this thread as you admitting to being a lolicon.
maybe if you're a retard
No, I'm just admitting that when I hear the words "bully" and "cartoon girl", my mind jumps to "lolis".
is that a trope or something? I'm not familiar it would kinda make sense though, a lot of young grade school-ish girls have the bullying, dominant personality type and that kinda gets weeded out later as the "wrong" personality to have as a girl pretty fucked up
6187
« on: November 25, 2016, 04:15:43 PM »
literally what lmao
I have no sexual attraction to the character Lucy Van Pelt from Charlie Brown
I have a social/sexual attraction to the bossy, bullying personality type she displays. Hence why the title is "you will never have a Lucy in your life"
jesus christ man, this really isn't a hard concept to grasp
I know man, I'm just taking a dig at you because it's easy to see this thread as you admitting to being a lolicon.
maybe if you're a retard
6188
« on: November 25, 2016, 04:12:11 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
Ahh, the classic "she's actually a demon that's over 3000 years old, so it's okay that she looks like a prepubescent girl" I gotchu famalm.
literally what lmao I have no sexual attraction to the character Lucy Van Pelt from Charlie Brown I have a social/sexual attraction to the bossy, bullying personality type she displays. Hence why the title is "you will never have a Lucy in your life" jesus christ man, this really isn't a hard concept to grasp
6189
« on: November 25, 2016, 04:01:25 PM »
is this just your new "wah, bold text isn't bold enough" thing
Italics. And that's still a problem, see the above post for a clear example of that.
6190
« on: November 25, 2016, 04:00:27 PM »
then code them fucking differently
why
why not why should it go [variable button] - report - reply - quote for your post and report - [variable button] - reply - quote for my post? It's just not optimal or aesthetically sound
6191
« 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
6192
« 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
6193
« 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
6194
« 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"
6195
« 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.
6196
« on: November 25, 2016, 03:23:58 PM »
 no one to bully you and make you miserable just for fun why live
6197
« 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
6198
« 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.
6199
« 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
6200
« 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.
6201
« 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.
6202
« 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.
6203
« on: November 25, 2016, 12:53:35 PM »
6204
« on: November 25, 2016, 12:15:07 PM »
is patrick stewart still in these new x men movies or what
6205
« 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.
6206
« 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
6207
« 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.
6208
« 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.
6209
« 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.
6210
« 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.
Pages: 1 ... 205206207 208209 ... 1001
|
Show Posts
