Lurker > StealThisSheen

Remember when he did Iron Man 1 and then demanded to be paid more than RDJ, and so they replaced him with Don Cheadle, a better actor who did the role for less pay?

Doom_Art posted...

the fuck are you on about

Fortune has a weird obsession with self-insertion and finding characters "fuckable," or whatever term he chooses to go with, and thus he is very against any portrayal of characters like April O'Neil, Mary Jane, etc., and so on in ways that he finds unattractive.

FortuneCookie posted...

Hold on...

Do you have a problem with self-insert fantasies as a concept or just Spider-Man in particular as a self-insert fantasy?

If you're watching pretty much anything as a self-insert fantasy, above all else, then, yes, chances are you are watching it the wrong way.

FortuneCookie posted...

Okay, so I'm watching Spider-Man the wrong way.

If the MCU does things in a way that you don't care for, just remember that you're watching it the wrong way.

...If you're watching Spiderman as a love story, first and foremost, then... Yes, you are watching it the wrong way.

FortuneCookie posted...

That's untrue.

I've said time and again that my problem is with her being not being an adult.

I mean, your problems with her not being an adult tend to stem from... You want to be attracted to her, so...

Doom_Art posted...

In a different film

I mean I should've clarified I did like how Infinity War attempted to salvage his arc. They handled Thor really well in that one tbh

Fair enough, yeah. I was talking overall.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

Ohhhh no is he one of those people who REALLY didnt like the April portrayal in that new turtles movie

He had an absolute meltdown over it.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

I uh. Genuinely cannot empathize with where youre coming from with this. Spider-man is not a love story first and foremost. Thats just false.

FortuneCookie generally has some very... Questionable takes, to put it nicely. Don't even get him started on April and TMNT, where he gets very upset if April isn't presented entirely as a sex object.

Doom_Art posted...

As is, in the film it's more of an afterthought or an action set piece, and the ultimate destruction of Asgard is treated as a punchline to a joke Korg makes

I mean, doesn't this ultimately pay-off quite soon after, when Thanos quite literally kills off pretty much most of the surviving Asgardians but Thor, himself? I feel like the payoff was that Thor ultimately partially deflects/stops Ragnarok, but ultimately doesn't actually fully save his people, since... Thanos kinda decimates them soon after.

Toonstrack posted...

I dont get this.

When they make a hero super tied to the mcu, then ppl say it feels like homework.

When they say make a movie self contained then people say its not connected enough.

The first dr strange and black panther movies are more isolated lol.

Shang chi features abomination, Bruce banner, captain marvel and wong.

The MCU kinda caused its own problem. People expect tie-ins and Avenger-esque buildups. Currently, there are no such buildups. Yes, characters have appeared in each other's movies, but there's nothing suggesting other heroes are seeking out or want to team up with Shangchi, for example. He just kinda did his own thing, and hasn't even really been referenced since.

The point is you have to kinda consider how people are going to relate things to MCU of the past, where literally everything tied together within a movie or two. Shang Chi is a movie that released a few years ago and, outside of the references it makes within itself, ultimately exists in isolation. Shang Chi referenced other movies, but there aren't really any other movies that reference Shang Chi.

BlueBoy675 posted...

Didnt they recently say the Netflix shows are canon? I know they at least said Daredevil is

I believe they did, but as far as the average person is concerned, something doesn't truly become canon until it's actually presented as such. Keeping the same Kingpin, for example, blatantly makes something like Daredevil canon in the minds of viewers, but while they can say Iron Fist is canon, it doesn't necessarily become canon to the viewing public until they do something to actually tie it in.

Does that make sense, for my argument? Sorry if that sounds like a whole bunch of nothing, it's kinda tough to relay how I feel they've portrayed things.

BlueBoy675 posted...

Iron Fist

Iron Fist hasn't officially become part of the MCU, yet, so he wouldn't count.

Shang Chi, arguably. His movie feels way too self-contained.

Gotta be Frieza, he's the only one with a consistent history of fighting when he feels threatened, and if his purpose is to protect me, that should qualify under "feels threatened."

Buu literally missed out on an entire tournament because he fell asleep/didn't care enough to complete an assessment/whatever. Vegeta is a consistent underachiever who mainly cares about himself. Cell feels like the weakest in outright power.

Frieza is pretty much the only one who has, consistently, shown the ability and the drive to over-perform, as long as he has personal stake.

It's almost like when you don't have leadership that pushes hate, less murders happen.

Who'da thunk it?

cuttin_in_farm posted...

Is it not moddable?

Depends on the context. If the context is you that you are attempting to troll/insult/whatever somebody, then yes, it is. If the context is... You're stating a fact, that they are medically considered fat, then no, it is not.

Likewise, if you are merely stating a chud is a chud, it's also not moddable.

I think we agree, I don't think I'm actually arguing with you. Sorry for the late edit on my last post.

EDIT: Wait, no. I think I am arguing with you, since you're trying to argue calling somebody a "chud" is moddable, period. But your argument fails, since calling somebody "fat" isn't just moddable period, and depends on the context.

cuttin_in_farm posted...

What about calling a fat person fat? Is that flaming, or no?

What's the difference?

I don't think I have ever seen somebody be modded for calling somebody fat, unless that's your point.

EDIT: I see, in fact, that was your point, per noticing Giblet got suspended or whatever. Nice, carry on.

ThePieReborn posted...

My entire profession is built on the back of people being fucking morons and getting warning labels put on everything.

Fair enough, and it's cool to see your input.

To me, I feel like a good 70% of the can basically screams "Alcohol," and while the Coca-Cola logo is large, it's still only like, 30% of the can. That said, looking at this kind of thing is not my job, so it's fun to see how that viewpoint differs.

ThePieReborn posted...

I feel like the Jack Daniels logo should be a bit larger than the Coke logo, but otherwise it gets a "meh" from me.

I get that somewhat, but the "Old No. 7 Brand" part is technically part of that logo, and then underneath that, right above Coca-Cola, it says Tennessee Whiskey. Like, you have to ignore a lot to ONLY see the Coca-Cola logo.

Like any alcoholic beverage, people just need to teach their kids "You don't drink these cans/bottles."

...No? It has a big Jack Daniel's logo, says Tennessee Whiskey, and has a rather big 7.0% alcohol label at the bottom. If your kid or somebody accidentally grabs it and thinks it's normal Coca-Cola, that's bad parenting, not because of the labeling.

Mr_Karate_II posted...

I'm gonna laugh when he's sued over Candy ass and The Great One.

Those were around way before he even started wrestling.

He won't be sued because these were trademarks WWE has already had for many years. He didn't trademark anything, he just gained ownership of the trademarks WWE already had.

It's weird how people are so intent on hating The Rock these days that they can't even read two lines into the story.

Kamil posted...

Didn't Marshawn Lynch trademark stuff. What took the Rock so long. Heh.

WWE had the rights, previously. This was just a transfer of rights from WWE to him.

C_Pain posted...

You mean aside from parlors? I eat that a decent amount, but not most commonly.

I was trying to give you cover, but instead you chose to double down on just having awful opinions.

I tried.

Kradek posted...

I think you've forgotten or blocked out most of Greene's greatest hits.

Yeah, she was largely in control of herself with McCarthy has Speaker, however this is the lady who wore a special all white outfit in Congress to resemble the Chinese balloon. She's the "Jewish space lasers lady". She tried starting shit with Biden at the SOTU, which he turned around and had Republicans promising they wouldn't kill social security & medicare.

It's definitely a lot closer than you're making it sound.

Isn't she also the one that stalks child survivors of school shootings and yells at them?

C_Pain posted...

Nope, the use of hard chocolates in ice cream is always bad.

This is the most "I only eat store brand ice cream" post ever.

BucketCat posted...

no, not really. I also eat ice cream cones but you don't see me doing photoshoots or eating them in front of people.
like explosive diarrhea, I eat my ice cream in complete isolation.

That seems like a personal problem.

BucketCat posted...

how is it miserable to have an opinion? if it was any other form of ice cream I'd be fine, but he had to pick the cone. at least opt for soft serve if you're gonna make other people watch you eat.

"I don't like people eating ice cream cones because I don't like the face they make when eating ice cream cones."

That's miserable, dude.

BucketCat posted...

I'm pretty indifferent to joe biden, he's done some things I like and some things I dislike. the thing I don't like is the stupid facial expression that people make when they eat ice cream cones.
it could be joe, it could be trump, it could even be anna kendrick who I love and have a crush on... I'll still say the same thing

"stop getting your picture taken when you're eating ice cream, you look like a fool"

it's the same face people make when they're constipated. so stop. I don't want to imagine people pooping.

Imagine being this miserable.

Rika_Furude posted...

Did you read the post or did you just try to argue before reading? My point is that its a waste of time for you to get offended over the word female

So then, yes, you had no actual point? Cool, thanks for saying so.

I liked the first a bit. The other two are fairly boring.

Rika_Furude posted...

Ok? The point obviously went over your head and youre looking to argue for no reason.

Then explain your point?

Rika_Furude posted...

No? Thats a whole new sentence

Rika_Furude posted...

Any scenario its ok to call a dude a male, its also ok to call a gal a female. Anyone who disagrees has a screw loose

You posted this as if people using "the males" is anywhere near a thing as much as certain people using "the females" is. It's not. At all.

Rika_Furude posted...

People can use any term to be derogatory. Best to not be hyper vigilant because they just pivot to any other term to make you mad again

So, in other words, you just wanted to deflect.

Rika_Furude posted...

not that many. Whys it matter?

Because incels intentionally use "the females" as a derogatory term, so your argument is pointless unless there is a sizeable amount of people saying "the males" in a similar fashion.

Rika_Furude posted...

Any scenario its ok to call a dude a male, its also ok to call a gal a female. Anyone who disagrees has a screw loose

Okay. So what are scenarios where anybody says "the males?"

Because it certainly seems like there are certain people who intentionally say "the females," but I can't really think of any common scenarios where people say "the males."

haloiscoolisbak posted...

Yeah, okay. 2 of the 4 examples I was given when I asked about alternatives are not terms I'd ever really consider respectful replacements but go off

You chose to go off on those, ignoring all context, in order to defend the literal use of "the females."

So, yes, I am going to "go off."

haloiscoolisbak posted...

If the goal is to be less offensive, it's funny that skirts and birds are considered appropriate when I really doubt most girls enjoy being called either

So your goal is to completely miss the point, and hyper focus on two questionable terms in order to defend incel vernacular?

Got it.

If your point is about context, "Dames" can be used respectfully, in context. So can "gals," and so on.

There's pretty much no respectful context whatsoever that "the females" can be used in, in casual conversation.

haloiscoolisbak posted...

I guess so. The other guy mentioned "skirts" as a legit alternative so part of me thinks some people are missing my point here

What point do you think you're making? You appear to just be attempting to defend incel vernacular, so if that isn't your intention, please explain further.

Link_of_time posted...

Since at least the 90s. Though i thought we were discussing using the word "female".

I don't know of anyone who would say "that female", mostly cuz it just sounds incorrect.

This is specifically referring to using "female" as a noun, or atleast in similar, dehumanizing context, because the incel way is to say "That female/the females" etc. and so on.

Link_of_time posted...

People had been using the term in casual conversation long before it became a buzzword for the youth

When has "that female" ever, ever been a term in casual conversation? "Female" in casual conversation has only been an adjective, typically to describe something... Not human, where the gender may be unknown, such as, say, a pet. Using "female" as a noun to describe a woman has never been a thing in casual conversation.

SecretBase posted...

It's not like my earlier accounts would be recognized.

That doesn't answer the question. Why does it matter if they would be recognized, as long as they had a more consistent karma ratio? You're literally choosing to post on an incredibly obvious alt, but then you... Get mad when people call you an alt? And if your other accounts don't have a more consistent karma ratio... Why not? Why do all of your accounts apparently have incredibly low karma for otherwise old accounts?

SecretBase posted...

I don't see the relevance when the other accounts will never be used again. When I switch it's permanent.

Why would literally anybody believe that when your "current" account is a 14 year old alt with barely two years of karma? That raises questions, no?

SecretBase posted...

Every election since 2016 I've posted my reservations about the Dem. frontrunner during the primary season and without fail the response by more partisan Democrats has been to personally insult and smear me, accusing me of being different both sides trolls/Trump trolls, etc. God forbid someone not like Hillary/Biden or think other liberal politicians are more competent than them.

It's just constant and it happening for three elections in a row tells me these people aren't gonna change.

So, in other words, you are conveniently letting people calling you out on Gamefaqs.com "just happen" to cause you to turn against the left. Hmm...

SecretBase posted...

Not with them insulting and smearing anyone who isn't fully in line with Biden. If someone makes an enemy out of me I'll absolutely be that.

How have they, personally, made an enemy out of you? Please explain, in detail.

SecretBase posted...

Posting false information as fact is trolling, while persistently referring to users with false labels is flaming/harassment. And from experience I know you don't actually need to be aware that what you're posting isn't true, just being adamantly wrong and refusing to acknowkedge contradictory proof while continuing on is enough to be considered in violation.

Granted, the TOS may be more lax now. But similar behavior has been modded before.

You admit you're an alt, yet refuse to say who. That, in itself, could be considered trolling. Do you really wanna go down that route? When you admit you're an alt, you're inviting people to guess who.

SecretBase posted...

I'm tempted to start marking you and letting the mods weigh in on whether that's my account or not.

...Why would they? Nothing I've posted is against the TOS.