|
NikkolasKing posted:This is bullshit for a lot of reasons but the one that really gets to me is that this is no joke for him. He's decided to make a career out of YouTube. This is his livelihood at the moment and some troll literally just hosed with his job to be an rear end in a top hat or an ideologue or something. Does this person prefer he/him pronouns? I was wondering.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:25 |
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Does this person prefer he/him pronouns? I was wondering. He made a video about it that stated a preference for as much confusion on the subject as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Does this person prefer he/him pronouns? I was wondering. contra has said that he doesn't mind, and she has encouraged people to mix it up like i just did there. look up the genderqueer video on their channel it's really good
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:He made a video about it that stated a preference for as much confusion on the subject as possible. One of my close friends told me their preference for pronoun was either their/them or "sex panda" when I asked, so I'm familiar with that arrangement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Speaking of Lindsay Ellis, she just posted another video, breaking down Mel Brook's satire of Nazis and other controversial subjects (and completely dismantling the edge-lord "Mel Brooks could do it, why can't I?" argument). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62cPPSyoQkE
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Does this person prefer he/him pronouns? I was wondering. From what I understood, while yes, Contra enjoys the confusion, they are not transgendered, and simply enjoys uh...cross-dressing? Dressing against type?  I forget the proper term. Help please?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
genderfuck
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:From what I understood, while yes, Contra enjoys the confusion, they are not transgendered, and simply enjoys uh...cross-dressing? Dressing against type? Contra stated in a video that he is okay with either pronoun. Ideal would be to switch between different pronouns, even mid-sentence, but she understands that it's a tall order and is fine with either. EDIT: Also, while I enjoy Lindsay Ellis' latest video, I could really do with some essay on Nazism that doesn't feel the obligation to quickly detour into Hannah Arendt's banality of evil for 5 minutes. Surely by now everyone is familiar with the basic concept? On second thought... probably not. EDIT 2: gently caress it, just noticed that Lovechop got there first. Oh well. Fair Bear Maiden fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Jun 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
LanceHunter posted:Speaking of Lindsay Ellis, she just posted another video, breaking down Mel Brook's satire of Nazis and other controversial subjects (and completely dismantling the edge-lord "Mel Brooks could do it, why can't I?" argument). This is really good. But I can't help but see the age old problem cropping up in it of "A lie can get around the world before the truth can get it's shoes on". That's a solid dive into just why the haphazard defense of "It's a joke/satire/parody/ur PC cuck snoflak" people use once they get in trouble doesn't actually work. The problem is it took 40 min to get there. While shorter explanations are available, this goes the extra mile to provide context and really work through the problem step by step, and it really needs to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
That is part of it, but not the dull concept. It has to do with the structure of narrative, how making a compelling villain can bite you back when applied to historical figures/movements, and such. There's a reason Darth Vader has always been cooler than Luke Skywalker, and when you translate that outside of pure fiction... poo poo, I remember when American History X came out and pretty much all of my teen geek friends couldn't shut up about what a badass Norton's character was, how he had a hot girlfriend and banged her really hard and how rad it was that he made some thug bite the curb. So it does chill be a bit to see it referred to again in our current context.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:That is part of it, but not the dull concept. It has to do with the structure of narrative, how making a compelling villain can bite you back when applied to historical figures/movements, and such. There's a reason Darth Vader has always been cooler than Luke Skywalker, and when you translate that outside of pure fiction... This makes me thing a Four Lions remake done with skinheads would be a worthwhile picture to make.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
LanceHunter posted:This makes me thing a Four Lions remake done with skinheads would be a worthwhile picture to make.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:poo poo, I remember when American History X came out and pretty much all of my teen geek friends couldn't shut up about what a badass Norton's character was, how he had a hot girlfriend and banged her really hard and how rad it was that he made some thug bite the curb. So it does chill be a bit to see it referred to again in our current context. American History X is pretty much the definitive case of how to not portray extremism. Just imagine a movie made in the same style about ISIS and you start getting into just how much the movie fumbled what it was trying to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:American History X is pretty much the definitive case of how to not portray extremism. Just imagine a movie made in the same style about ISIS and you start getting into just how much the movie fumbled what it was trying to do. A pretty big segment of my (former) friendship group in high school went so far as to shave their heads and get white power tattoos after seeing that film. Its like seeing Trainspotting and thinking 'wow i really need to get into doing loads of smack'
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
Dekko posted:A pretty big segment of my (former) friendship group in high school went so far as to shave their heads and get white power tattoos after seeing that film. Its like seeing Trainspotting and thinking 'wow i really need to get into doing loads of smack' Yeah who the hell watches American History X and thinks "That racist murderer has got it going on!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
bessantj posted:Yeah who the hell watches American History X and thinks "That racist murderer has got it going on!" They probably watch only the first half hour or so on repeat, or probably just the curbstomp scene in particular, over and over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 12:47
|
|
|
The type of people who walk away from Apocalypse Now thinking how great a character Kilgore is and how rad that attack was
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
bessantj posted:Yeah who the hell watches American History X and thinks "That racist murderer has got it going on!" it's usually related to what happens to the kid in the end of the movie
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
bessantj posted:Yeah who the hell watches American History X and thinks "That racist murderer has got it going on!" "That racist murderer (played by an extremely attractive human being with transgressive tattoos and sexy muscles) probably gets laid heaps."
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
he certainly got some in the shower.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
Mans posted:it's usually related to what happens to the kid in the end of the movie What does happen to him I haven't seen it in ages. Does he write a letter or essay or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Fair Bear Maiden posted:EDIT: Also, while I enjoy Lindsay Ellis' latest video, I could really do with some essay on Nazism that doesn't feel the obligation to quickly detour into Hannah Arendt's banality of evil for 5 minutes. Surely by now everyone is familiar with the basic concept? On second thought... probably not. Arendt's essays are fading into historical memory even as we continue to discuss the Holocaust today. People take it for granted today that the Holocaust was an atrocity that we always knew about and always cared about. As Tony Judt argues: "But if we wish to grasp the true significance of evil—what Hannah Arendt intended by calling it “banal”—then we must remember that what is truly awful about the destruction of the Jews is not that it mattered so much but that it mattered so little.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
bessantj posted:What does happen to him I haven't seen it in ages. Does he write a letter or essay or something. a black kid shoots him to death in the bathroom. in the original script, this caused ed norton to go back to being a nazi (the last shot would've been him shaving his head).
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:a black kid shoots him to death in the bathroom. Many thanks. Man, I really haven't watched it in a while.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:in the original script, this caused ed norton to go back to being a nazi (the last shot would've been him shaving his head). LOL what the gently caress I understand this in a way, showing cycles of violence that fuel each other or whatever, but to the morons that idolized derek that would have been a complete affirmation of neonazism IMO.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:Arendt's essays are fading into historical memory even as we continue to discuss the Holocaust today. People take it for granted today that the Holocaust was an atrocity that we always knew about and always cared about. As Tony Judt argues: "But if we wish to grasp the true significance of evil—what Hannah Arendt intended by calling it “banal”—then we must remember that what is truly awful about the destruction of the Jews is not that it mattered so much but that it mattered so little. i think a lot of people (probably most everyone actually) are under the impression that because we recognize the holocaust as such an evil act, perhaps the most evil act ever committed, that it was always seen as such. the holocaust didn't enter into the public consciousness of america (or even germany) until the airing of the miniseries Holocaust in 1978. that's 33 years after the war ended and 16 years after eichmann was captured and executed by israel. Barbe Rouge posted:LOL what the gently caress yeah it's good they didn't go with it. i never really liked killing off the kid after he comes to the realization that hatred is a lie either tho.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:i think a lot of people (probably most everyone actually) are under the impression that because we recognize the holocaust as such an evil act, perhaps the most evil act ever committed, that it was always seen as such. the holocaust didn't enter into the public consciousness of america (or even germany) until the airing of the miniseries Holocaust in 1978. that's 33 years after the war ended and 16 years after eichmann was captured and executed by Israel. This seems implausible. Lots of scholarship predates the 80s, and political scientists and philosophers have been fixated on the hows and whys since the 50s. Plus in the realm of the arts alone you have Judgment at Nuremberg and The Pawnbroker in the 60s. Plus like, I don't know, gross Bruno Matei porno and Salon Kitty or whatever. How are you defining public consciousness?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
normal everyday people. i'm not talking academia. that miniseries was huge especially in germany.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:This seems implausible. Lots of scholarship predates the 80s, and political scientists and philosophers have been fixated on the hows and whys since the 50s. Plus in the realm of the arts alone you have Judgment at Nuremberg and The Pawnbroker in the 60s. Plus like, I don't know, gross Bruno Matei porno and Salon Kitty or whatever. I think you're giving too much credit to how much the general public not only care to look into this stuff, but would be able to. I think a lot of people forget just how hard it was to find information that wasn't posted in the daily papers. The information's presence in an academic journal means nothing to the average person. Hell, it still means nothing today when most journals are readily accessible, if behind a paywall, to those who want them. And even the Nuremberg trials weren't broadcast or watched widely. There was footage shown, sure. But it wasn't like how people may have watched the OJ Simpson trial. And with all the evidence footage used, unless that was shown on TV (it wasn't at the time) you probably had no way to see it as an average citizen. So I can totally believe that public understanding of the Holocaust was minimal at best until a semi-modern television series brought it to life for them. EDIT: To not just throw poo poo out without any sources I looked up when the topic of "The Holocaust" entered textbooks. I found a section from a class at UC Santa Barbra (Link). Seems that 1952 was the first inclusion of the topic of the plight of the Jewish people in Germany in WW2, but it only kinda touches on the Holocaust, like barely: quote:The only mention of concentration camps is in reference to pastors being sent there: "During the summer, large numbers of Protestant Pastors were arrested and sent to concentration camps."[7] As the protest increased from Catholic and Protestant sects, the situation for the Jews became worse: After that it slowly started to expand. It really wasn't till the mid to late 60s that the Holocaust started to be explicitly talked about, even the details of the camps and the campaign behind them were treated very lightly and kind of had their reality blurred a bit in the name of "good taste". But, the thing here is that these are College textbooks. In the 50s and 60s the college going public was still very small compared to today, and unless you were majoring in History these topics comprised maybe 1 week of info in one semester in your 4 years of college. The reason I make the distinction of college textbooks vs just text books is because I don't think we can really expect the general public to be aware of this stuff, to the level we are, until grade school texts are teaching kids about it. At that point, yes, most people will be exposed to the idea. Crain fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Jun 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
bessantj posted:Yeah who the hell watches American History X and thinks "That racist murderer has got it going on!" It's all about what assumptions you have going in. If you see Norton as a terrifying and despicable human being in the first half (like most did), then the second half is about his tragic failure at finding redemption for his sins and stopping the cycle from perpetuating. However, if you subscribe to the second reading of the first half (which is that Norton is someone who due to his ideals has power, access to sex and a raw masculinity which allows him to protect his own) then the second half suddenly becomes about him doubting his ideals and getting justly punished for it. Both readings are correct, which is a failure of the film. It works so hard to make Norton seem intimidating by making him a capable and sexy anti-hero (instead of say a fat loser) that the movie forgets that this goes both ways. What one person finds intimidating another will find worth emulating. To anyone who feels weak or emasculated the first-half Norton inadvertently becomes a role-model. You might recognize this argument because Fight Club had a very similar problem. 'Hell yeah lets start our own fight club, gently caress society' was the last thing the director was going for and yet that was what many watchers took from the movie. I would bring up the comments of this video as a more recent example but sadly many seem to have actually caught themselves in a post-Trump world. Armstrong is probably the most cartoonishly evil villain in any recent work of fiction and yet his speech tugs at enough strings of powerlessness that some will still find it empowering. These works of fictions can of course, unlike American History X, be excused for doing this because they're not portraying loving neo-nazis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Barbe Rouge posted:LOL what the gently caress poo poo, several of my friends then thought the morals of the story was "Hit them hard enough and they won't be around to kill you in the bathroom later. The dude only got raped because he talked crap to his peers and was causing trouble." So yeah, American History X was the first Pepe the Frog.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:It's all about what assumptions you have going in. If you see Norton as a terrifying and despicable human being in the first half (like most did), then the second half is about his tragic failure at finding redemption for his sins and stopping the cycle from perpetuating. However, if you subscribe to the second reading of the first half (which is that Norton is someone who due to his ideals has power, access to sex and a raw masculinity which allows him to protect his own) then the second half suddenly becomes about him doubting his ideals and getting justly punished for it. Both readings are correct, which is a failure of the film. It works so hard to make Norton seem intimidating by making him a capable and sexy anti-hero (instead of say a fat loser) that the movie forgets that this goes both ways. What one person finds intimidating another will find worth emulating. To anyone who feels weak or emasculated the first-half Norton inadvertently becomes a role-model. How is not being corny agitprop a failure? The original ending would make that film much more interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
It's been a long time since I watched AHX but I've talked with people about why they cheered for the Nazi. It's not just about sex I mean, that's part of it, but the real root cause is one of confidence and projected strength Motivational speaker types aren't wrong when they tell you the best thing you can have is confidence. People are attracted to those who project airs of charisma and unbreakable will. Apparently during the first half Derek is just a lot more argumentative too, You know the type, he's got the statistics showing black crime and whatever. Pair that up with his raw appeal and you got a recipe for disaster. People are more attracted to this than his "namby-pamby wishy-washy sentimental" self later on. It's a sad fact of reality. Anyway, the user Dick Coughlan was kind enough to mirror Contra's flagged video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYUCD5mO1gI NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Jun 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
this is horrible but when i watched the movie i thought his gf was ugly (and i still do sorry for anyone who thinks she's weird-cute or whatever) so it just seemed like oh white trash people got gross mates which seems to be the norm irl as well. so for me it was a negative he was getting sex since it wasn't with anyone i'd bone (i first saw the movie at 13 which is when it came out).
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:this is horrible but when i watched the movie i thought his gf was ugly (and i still do sorry for anyone who thinks she's weird-cute or whatever) so it just seemed like oh white trash people got gross mates which seems to be the norm irl as well. so for me it was a negative he was getting sex since it wasn't with anyone i'd bone (i first saw the movie at 13 which is when it came out). The edgiest of takes
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Armstrong is one of my favorite villains because the reveal that he actually has ideals and goals (being presented as heartless and greedy before) makes him more of a monster. Hell people root for the empire in star wars. Literal space Nazis
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
SHY NUDIST GRRL posted:
This became extra funny when the "somehow less ambiguously evil than the Empire" First Order started getting defenders who were upset that their favorite guys were getting treated..like villains...
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
SHY NUDIST GRRL posted:Armstrong is one of my favorite villains because the reveal that he actually has ideals and goals (being presented as heartless and greedy before) makes him more of a monster. i like the empire or at least find them interesting. and Armstrong is basically the idealized version of trump if he was actually charismatic or smart. also andrew ryan is villian i love because i can see why he beilives his awful bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Just wanted to say I've been watching Chez Lindsay and Contra Points thanks to this thread and these are actual YouTube intellectuals, as opposed to whatever the gently caress "Sargon of whatever the gently caress" is. Love ContraPoints' video about The Rubin Report.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:25 |
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i like the empire or at least find them interesting. and Armstrong is basically the idealized version of trump if he was actually charismatic or smart. also andrew ryan is villian i love because i can see why he beilives his awful bullshit. Yeah but you don't think Andrew Ryan is right
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 01:40
|
|