|
SMG regularly treats me like the worthless piece of poo poo that I am and for that I love him
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 02:11 |
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Yes? I do tend to get mad at hypocrisy...?? I'm not insulting your intelligence  I think you're taking the tone of my posting much harsher than I'm intending it. I mean, I'm using dense in the sense that you're not allowing new info in and pushing out the same argument. I'm sure your very intelligent but I also don't think you're actually engaging with my argument. Like my point is that it wasn't the post alone and even now you're saying" well no one else would have been banned for that post and, yes, that's because he wasn't banned just for the post. It wasn't about the fact he said "get out" it's about he fact that he's had a pattern of being rude and dismissive to an extensive degree, he has been warned about it, he had just been probated a month for it and here was a post, that in a vacuum was not unusual, was him being rude and dismissive. It was a tip of the iceberg situation. Anyways, he's not even banned anymore so this is all moot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
Oh I'm not dumb I'm just willfully ignorant okay thanks
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
SMG has poo brain but, like, who else is gonna make giant effort posts like the ones in the A:C thread? Who's gonna do that? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? SMG has a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Tezzor and you curse the effortposters. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: That Tezzor's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And SMG's existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.Ferrinus posted:No, he just happened to discuss more recent material. I remember SubG just loving dissolving Star Trek: TNG in acid but because he was doing a sort of meandering retrospective in the general chat thread rather than posting about it in TVIV at the same time it was airing you just didn't get the same kind of brand loyalty/creeping insecurity lurker backlash. I don't entirely agree--most of the stuff that sets people off (Prometheus, Man of Steel, Zack Snyder in general) is pro. I think it's more people feeling threatened intellectually (what, you're so stupid you didn't realize 300 is a satirical comedy?) porfiria fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Jun 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Uhhhh yes??? Did you even fully read mine? Not only did I respond to your points I gave specific evidence in the second half of the drat post. What the hell? glam rock hamhock posted:Okay a few things Not going to probate either of you but cool it with this. I understand you're both trying to defend your thoughts but there's no need to get so personal. There's a reason I said people can keep talking about it in here, because I understand that people still want to talk about it, and I still want to talk about it because I like being open with everyone about my decisions. I understand I've upset some people but I want to make things are clear, and there's no reason to fight over this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Oh I'm not dumb I'm just willfully ignorant okay thanks ...I don't think I said that??? Eh, I'm sorry to offend. It wasn't my intent. I just didn't think people were engaging very honestly with the argument and you still are arguing points that I thought I covered. This is already more than I really wanted to type on the topic, so once again, sorry if I offended you, SMG isn't banned anymore anyways so let's all just move on to something else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:But when someone actively encourages people to want to stop posting and engaging with them, I think it's a problem. As Is aid in the QCS thread, there are plenty of people who engage with SMG, myself included. And there are plenty of people who don't agree with him, and argue with him, and that's fine and good. But consistently, and especially as of late, SMG was not interested in actually arguing, he was interested in telling someone they were wrong and that he was better than them because he was right. There was no engagement to be had, even for people who went out of their way to write up well-thought out and reasoned responses (and trust me, I know that this was not always the case with the people engaging with him). He would continue to explain that they were wrong until one of two things happened a)they agreed with him or b) they stopped engaging because of how abrasive he was being towards them. I understand what some of you are saying in "well they shouldn't get so upset," etc., but I think their reaction is also valid. I don't see a difference between his older posts and his more recent posts, and more importantly I don't see the difference between "actually arguing" and "explain(ing) that they were wrong until .... they agreed with him or they stopped engaging". In general it is not consistent for you to tell us that it's okay to call things stupid, say stuff is wrong, disagree, etc, but then at the same time probate and ban someone for being arrogant or acting superior. It's just not sensible or sustainable to police tone in that way and what ends up happening is people get punished because their writing style happens to rub the mod the wrong way rather than because they've done something deleterious to the community. If I'm disagreeing with you about a movie and I think there's something about it you simply haven't grasped or haven't noticed, I am at some point going to have to insult your perception or apprehension - make the claim that I succeeded where you failed, that I saw and grasped something you just didn't - or else our discussion can't continue. Like, SMG's thesis on the new Alien movies is that people's negative reaction and/or misreading them comes from a concern for the brand and franchise rather than for the movie. Implicitly, this is insulting to a whole swathe of people who didn't like and/or "get" the movie. But... what, is he supposed to hide that he believes this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
I really enjoy SMGs crazy readings. I only a agree with maybe a quarter of what he says, but his long-winded flights of analytical fancy are harmless, and I don't understand why anyone would get mad or give a poo poo that someone posted some crazy bullshit. What I don't like is that he's not interested in a dialogue about film. He doesn't argue in good faith and he isn't interested in educating people, only establishing superiority. He's a goalpost moving, equivocating dick. And in a forum that is supposed to be about discussing films, he's only interested in a onesided smackdown. This is what drives people who are actually interested in discussing "out-there" readings, because he won't actually engage with you except to tell you that you're wrong. Snak fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Jun 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
porfiria posted:I don't entirely agree--most of the stuff that sets people off (Prometheus, Man of Steel, Zack Snyder in general) is pro. I think it's more people feeling threatened intellectually (what, you're so stupid you didn't realize 300 is a satirical comedy?) Well, nowadays, sure. But he (was one of the people who) riled up a lot of fans by criticizing Transformers 1 and Tron: Legacy and Avengers and whatever else, and while the specific movies he chooses to criticize or defend has changed his basic thesis (that those who disagree are acting shallow and fanboyish and failing to read art critically) has not. ...but this is Cinema Discusso, you're supposed to be able to say that here. That's why there's a Baby's First Film Discussion forum now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Snak posted:he won't actually engage with you except to tell you that you're wrong. This, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Like, SMG's thesis on the new Alien movies is that people's negative reaction and/or misreading them comes from a concern for the brand and franchise rather than for the movie. Also it's just flatly true. In the thread and in the critical reception both, and pretty much everywhere else you care to look.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
I like SMG 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Also it's just flatly true. In the thread and in the critical reception both, and pretty much everywhere else you care to look. It's a shithead thing to say.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:Where?! IFC Center in West Village, playing twice a day all week
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Also it's just flatly true. In the thread and in the critical reception both, and pretty much everywhere else you care to look. It's undeniable! And it's not like we needed him to tell us, he just marshaled the best production values in the course of doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:Like I said in the QCS thread, they made an entire new forum to avoid what has become the CineD trademark way of discussing movies and it died almost immediately. The lesson to take away is that that kind of discussion just isn't sustainable. We had numerous goons claiming that they wanted to discuss movies not in the CineD way and when it came time for them to put up or shut up, they collectively did the latter. That's probably because it's fairly pointless to have a second one no one knows about around.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
I'm not allowed to cum until i've caught up on every post in blockbuster video
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
Make the padded-corners hugtime movie forum the main forum, and make CD a subforum of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:39
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Make the padded-corners hugtime movie forum the main forum, and make CD a subforum of it. Where does this forum exist because Blockbuster Video is just an FYAD-lite.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
Blockbuster Video: Come here to cum here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
This took an odd turn
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I shat all over Hannibal in the TVIV thread and while many people disagreed with me they didn't flip their poo poo or anything, I don't think SA's gotten worse at taking criticism of popular media, unless it's very low-effort trolling. Games is the only place people get super defensive and mad and can't handle someone saying their current favorite thing is poo poo, but I don't think video game people have ever been good at that, especially anime video game people. What are you talking about, video gamers are always rational about video games. (It's about ethics in journalism, Roger Ebert is a fraud, If Anita Sarkeesian doesn't like attractive women in video games why does she wear make-up, and also I'm going to phone in a bomb threat whenever she tries to speak in public)
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
Wait guys. Wait! SMG S M G smug S M u G SMUG holy poo poo we're through the looking glass here people. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:It's a shithead thing to say. It's not a shithead thing to say. Accurately describing behaviour is not being a shithead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
I dunno, I thought it had pacing issues and I could not give less of a gently caress about xenomorphs one way or another (except I'm a little of sick of them I guess). I am a capitalist liberal pigdog though I admit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
Jonah Galtberg posted:It's not a shithead thing to say. Accurately describing behaviour is not being a shithead. Actually, the opposite interpretation, is true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:It's a shithead thing to say. See that's actually something I agree with SMG on, and I don't have a problem with him saying that. Saying that audiences and critics have this idea of a franchise context that is inhibiting them from judging the film on its own is not lovely or mean or anything. I'm in a weird place in this whole thing, because it's so polarized.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
To scroll back a bit,Snak posted:I really enjoy SMGs crazy readings. I only a agree with maybe a quarter of what he says, but his long-winded flights of analytical fancy are harmless, and I don't understand why anyone would get mad or give a poo poo that someone posted some crazy bullshit. See, I would tell you that he argues in completely good faith, he just makes a performance piece out of it. A lot of times when two people can't or don't want to come to an agreement, they will each say of the other that ah, he's not arguing in good faith, he's not interested in real dialogue, blah blah blah. Sometimes this is true of both of them and sometimes it's true of just one, but it sure as hell isn't a unique quality of the guy currently banned or, indeed, a bannable offense. Why, if it was, everyone who'd ever disagreed with me about anything would be perma'd!
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
Snak posted:See that's actually something I agree with SMG on, and I don't have a problem with him saying that. Saying that audiences and critics have this idea of a franchise context that is inhibiting them from judging the film on its own is not lovely or mean or anything. It's a shitheaded way to frame your comeback in a conversation about a movie hmmmm actually you're blinded by your own ignorant fetishization of the brand hmmmmmm
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
SMG is a national treasure. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:It's a shitheaded way to frame your comeback in a conversation about a movie What's the polite way to say "you're blinded by your own ignorant fetishization of the brand?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:What's the polite way to say "you're blinded by your own ignorant fetishization of the brand?" while giving me a handy j in the regal 21 dumpster
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
BYOB is the forum for being nice all the time
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:It's a shitheaded way to frame your comeback in a conversation about a movie He didn't do that, though. He literally opened with that, not responding to someone. It's a totally fair way to set the stage for the rest of his reading. If I was going to write a review of Covenant, I would start with a similar disclaimer. As you can see, there are more than two sides to this argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Snak posted:He didn't do that, though. He literally opened with that, not responding to someone. It's a totally fair way to set the stage for the rest of his reading. If I was going to write a review of Covenant, I would start with a similar disclaimer. You're presupposing that I know what I'm talking about, which goes entirely against my philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
John Wick is cool as hell
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
I don't really know how to explain myself any more than I have already. I think there is a way to explain yourself and to argue with people without needing to personally insult their intelligence, no matter how divisive the argument might be (like the franchising argument in the Alien thread which I agree with) and I don't think that it's conductive to a positive posting environment, which is all I try to do as a mod.Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:John Wick is cool as hell Hell yeah
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Just say words that mean things sometimes and don't get mad
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
What's really funny is that SMG's tone and mode of engagement with others are an essential element of his posts. I don't just mean like a signature style or something, but that they provide additional context and content for the argument being presented. Like it or not, it's pretty tough to take the argument without everything else and end up with the same understanding.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 02:11 |
|
|
Y'know what I don't get: why do some filmmakers never put their shorts online? Like usually the vast majority of shorts I see where I see those things end up online because, really, what else are you going to do with a short? Like I can understand that some people want to sell their shorts and some spend years on the festival circuit but some just never show up online. I only say this because like seven years ago I saw this short called Negativipeg and I've been dying to see it again and it is nowhere outside of a small clip. I mean, if I could pay for it, I would but a few times every year I look and always come back disappointed. I'm sure it won't be good as a remember because everything's better at a festival but I still wanna see it again. After I search I usually look through what other shorts I liked that I'e never seen posted and I look until I find one which always leads to a Short of the Day Ten Meter Tower https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8-Oc_TOPDI Warning: a very funny and endearing look at people at their most vulnerable. Also extremely, mildly  . Like so much to that it's probably not
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:09
|
|