Lurker > lolife67

They are in the same universe. We actually got the Darkwing origin story in the DuckTales reboot.

HashtagSEP posted...

Did halo literally forget to switch alts there, and once caught, went from "I hope people don't hate me" to "I was right to hate this place?"

Yes. Yes they did lol

haloiscoolisbak posted...

Keep going down the alt path. The level of delusion is making me feel better about myself

Glad I could help?

ai123 posted...

But people will complain if a character mentions they are gay once; they'll also complain if being gay 'is their whole personality'.

I dunno why one mention would be so objectionable anyway. We're back to the point where straight is the default setting, and if you want a character to be gay, you better start jumping through hoops to justify that. Why? Why do minority characters have to continually account for their existence?

Exactly! It's so laughable. A character having a same sex relationship shouldn't have to prove why they are allowed to exist. They simply are.

haloiscoolisbak posted...

You are so needlessly combative.

How so? The post you responded to was addressing someone else. Asking if you're their alt is perfectly reasonable. But now I'm starting to believe it since you like playing victim as much as the other poster.

specialkid8 posted...

You want an example? Look at literally any Disney movie from the past decade. People have actively been calling them out for it. They throw in a single line saying a character is gay so they can get their brownie points and cut it out for the Chinese market. My post was not about whether it's a thing or not. It is a thing. My post was about whether or not people think it's proper and legitimate representation and what would be a better option. Stop trying to make everything an argument and everyone you don't like a nazi.

I didn't call you or anyone else a Nazi, so stop trying to play victim lol you made a claim and have yet to back it up. That's on you. Continuing to insist something is happening when you have ZERO evidence of it is wild, though.

And your Disney example isn't even what we were discussing. You said there are characters where their only trait is talking about being gay and nothing more. Yet haven't listed even one example.

haloiscoolisbak posted...

Not everyone carefully calculates their posts dude

I treat this place like the group chat with my mates and say whatever comes to my head, assuming everyone knows I don't have horrible intentions. it's to generate discussion, not to get into a fight.

My fault for assuming people I don't know would be cool with that style of communication though. Everyone has their own style

Did you forget to change accounts?

specialkid8 posted...

Why can y'all only respond in gotcha statements instead of having a fucking discussion? Grow up.

You can't be serious? You brought it up and made it central to your point. Me asking for examples then pointing out your lack of any is telling isn't me being childish.

specialkid8 posted...

I can't think of any specific examples because they're such minor things. I don't keep track of them. But Doctor Who has done it quite a lot since the Moffat era.

So then it doesn't sound like it's "a lot" or anything to be concerned about since it's so minor, if it even happens at all.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

how do yall feel about stuff like blaxploitation when that was a very popular thing?

It's fine and has it's place considering the time it was made. However, we've moved past that and don't need all media with POCs to be so stereotypical.

specialkid8 posted...

But a lot of things recently have started having "Hi, I'm gay" characters which comes off as really grating,

What are some recent examples of this?

GranAures posted...

Like the Mario movie, and Barbie, the former having attacks retracted and being heralded as "anti-woke" when it was successful. Ghostbusters, I think, is still a favorite of the "get woke go broke" crowd that claim to only care about writing.

LightningAce11 posted...

Ive noticed that women and minorities are not allowed to have bad media. Its usually blamed on diversity. Where is something with majority white cast bombs people shrug and go eh bad movie, whatever.

Its definitely not equal.

Yup!

specialkid8 posted...

I don't think anyone is saying that. It's just that bad writers use diversity as a tool for virtue signaling and pretending like their work is more legitimate. Criticizing the poorly implemented diversity is criticizing bad writing.

Yeah, this is bs. They don't criticize the writing. They criticize diversity and blame it for the poor outcome. Look how many people complain about something before it even comes out.

specialkid8 posted...

Don't think I've ever heard of spite virtue signaling. I'm sure the quality of this person's work is compleyely above reproach.

Where are you getting "spite" from?

That was a weird comment considering myself and the others discussing the trial stopped a day or so ago. The conversation had shifted to his appearance at the college.

Dungeater posted...

bruh

I'm genuinely asking. I'm a 47 year old black guy, so I'm not sure what you're thinking, hence the question. What did you take issue with in my statement?

Dungeater posted...

this is the most ethnocentrist thing i ever read

How so? Do you think I'm saying "forced" as a negative thing?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

That's not true. Actually, just about all diversity has been forced. Unfortunately, straight, white and make as the default has been a thing for centuries and that thought process doesn't just naturally change. Which is why so many POC/female characters are made so purposely.

ai123 posted...

People demand Shakespearean levels of characterization and plot integration for minorities while eagerly consuming every gruff, white, ex-special forces clich that gets thrown their way.

Correct. Minority and female characters always have to "prove" themselves in a way straight white (cis) men don't.

ai123 posted...

Bad writing is bad writing.

A character being gay, or black, or female, does not drain an author of their ability to portray characters.

This. Complaining about how diverse characters are written doesn't mean they shouldn't be included. Plenty of straight, white male characters are poorly written but nobody says to stop making straight, white male characters.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It does, yes.

How so?

yemmy posted...

Thats the one clip Ive seen and its enough for me to know that it was probably worse than expected

How so?

I can't believe we're having to explain, to adults, the racism allegory that's meant to be understood by children.

The X-Men represent the privileged mutants. Most can either pass as giman or possess enough power to defend themselves. They aren't the majority of mutants.

Much how irl, Barrack Obama or any wealthy black person existing doesn't negate systemic racism against black people.

Cocytus posted...

That and I thought it was too much targeted to kids.

How old are you when you saw the original film in theaters?

StealThisSheen posted...

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. We don't know.

What we do know is that he is quite literally selling himself and grifting off of the idea that he is a stone cold killer, so I'm not sure he deserves the benefit of the doubt that you seem so determined to give him.

Fair enough.

Umbreon posted...

"He isn't some killer" when he literally said he wanted to kill people. Him being a chickenshit doesn't change that.

StealThisSheen posted...

You said he "isn't some killer."

He is, quite literally, a killer. By law, by public opinion, no matter what way you slice it.

Yes, I misspoke. I was trying to set he isn't just a stone cold killer.

StealThisSheen posted...

Why? What's relevant about the court case, when this topic is almost entirely about his character and what he has done since?

That was literally my first post and what I've been discussing ever since. You'd have to go back and re-read the topic to see why.

StealThisSheen posted...

Who is talking about a court case, here? We're talking about him as a person.

There are plenty of people that the law failed to properly condone, such as OJ Simpson.

I was talking about the court case. That's been my point all along. I've already agreed on his character.

And I agree the court failed. The verdict was correct but the charge was wrong and that's why justice wasn't done.

StealThisSheen posted...

I feel like this doesn't matter. He went there wanting to kill somebody, he did kill somebody, and now he's literally grifting off of the fact that he killed somebody. Nothing else really matters.

Understood. But that's not how court cases are supposed to work.

mybbqrules posted...

Yep, totally not happy he shot people to death and got away with it.

Good thing I never claimed what you're talking about.

StealThisSheen posted...

If I wasn't happy I shot somebody, I wouldn't try to literally market myself based on being "That guy that shot people." But maybe that's just me.

Again, I'm speaking about in that moment. He wasn't thinking "I want to kill these people. It'll be totally cool!" Dude was sh***ing himself.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

Thinking that you want a reason to kill another human is despicable.

Sure. Nobody's claiming he's not a POS. But he wasn't on trial for that.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

Why did he need to bring a gun? hell why was he there?

It's completely possible to think you want something to happen but then when it does, it's not what you expected/wanted after all.

creativerealms posted...

It can be self defense and he could have gone there hoping for a situation where he would be able to use his gun. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

Correct. He didn't look happy he got to shoot someone. He looked scared as hell lol

Rosstin316 posted...

So its pretty much what I said?

Correct.

LightningThief posted...

They actually have. It doesn't matter if you are gay, trans, Black, white, Latino, Russian, or Australian. All humans are capable of the same thing.

In the case of mutants, it's not an apples to apples comparison to real non fictional marginalized people. Black people are not and cannot be born with the innate ability to conjure a hurricane or melt ourselves into a puddle or whatever random lottery magical abilities.

Mutants are capable of any random lottery magical abilities that can range from harmless to apocalyptic scale.
Humans in the real world no matter your creed are not born with innate magical abilities that can range from harmless to apocalyptic.

What's being confused here is thinking the above means someone is saying bigotry is okay.

Yes but humans in the comic world can also get powers, yet aren't hated like mutants are. So the comparison still works.

Rosstin316 posted...

Isnt she on Rhaenyras side or am I misremembering?

Yes but this is before the war actually started. So she doesn't want to be responsible for setting things off.

"Racism" has been redefined (by some) as a systemic prejudicial practices, policies and attitudes based around race. As such no, white people generally cannot experience racism.

They can, however, experience prejudice based on their race. This is also a definition of racism (as far as I know it hasn't officially been changed to the former?)

But, at the end of the day, arguing the definition is just a lame way of dismissing whatever the original point being made is.

famfam posted...

they are literally going to be coming in from a different universe (this/next) year? Perhaps I am wrong, but have they crossed over at all in any of the other MCU movies/shows (except like in the latest Dr. Strange when they literally came from another universe). The MCU as we've seen it in every other movie (in this era) has had no allusions to mutants or any of that politics at all. Which is why it would be kind of weird (unless they are going to wave it off as they are coming in from a different universe)

We're talking comics, not movies.

famfam posted...

they have traditionally been different universes. There is a bit of oddness that comes from the MCU trying to merge the two. It actually doesn't align well

Um, no. Traditionally, they've existed in the same universe for decades.

NoxObscuras posted...

But there's an exemption for minors being able to posses long barrel rifles, specifically for hunting. And because of the vague way the law is worded, they were able to get the gun charged dropped, even though he clearly wasn't using it for hunting.

Yes, this tracks with what I recall. Thank you.

Did the victim's families ever sue him in civil court? That seems like one they could actually win.

Kradek posted...

Type of gun? You mean a high-powered semi-automatic rifle? It wasn't a shotgun or single shot hunting rifle he procured. If AR-15's have less regulations than guns actually used for hunting then we are truly screwed.

I don't recall the specifics but I remember it was the specific type of rifle that is legal for him to have. And yeah, our gun laws are ridiculously screwed up. Good luck changing that, though.

Kradek posted...

It shouldn't have been, though. He was underage and so had his girlfriend's brother buy him the gun with money Rittenhouse gave him because he was of age. How is that not the same as having someone of age buy cigarettes or alcohol for a minor? It wasn't even a family member who bought it for him. He was also underaged while open carrying that night in Kenosha, if I'm not mistaken.

I thought it was due to the type of gun as to why it wasn't illegal? But yeah, if this is the case then the gf's brother should be charged.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Ok.

SiO4 posted...

Well, I guess it could be 'perceived' as retreating, but he knew what he was doing.

~Maybe having zero street sense should be the crime, if he's that fucking stupid.

Oh, he's definitely that stupid. I think he's more than proven that at this point. Like I said earlier, he was a young, stupid kid who thought he was going to go and be a badass until it actually went down. Then he turned b****made.

SiO4 posted...

As I recall he had already shot someone who threw something in plastic bag at him.
Outside a gas station or something.

Had he? I thought the first person was shot as he was running backwards? Or was that the second?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I mean, nobody's making you respond to my posts lol I don't really care if you agree or not. Feel as you will.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I'm not so sure because when the incident happens he's seen retreating, not advancing. In that moment, he did fear for his life. Hence the verdict.

ClayGuida posted...

I personally don't think it was fair when the judge refused to allow gun charges or his prior and post actions to be addressed during the trial.

Motive wasn't allowed to be established and that alone taints the trial for me. You can disagree, and that's perfectly fine, but I think a trial for murder should absolutely allow evidence of intent.

"I wish I had my gun" shouldn't have been dismissed by the judge. Hanging out with known white supremacists shouldn't have been dismissed. If that was indeed him on video beating the shit out of a teenage girl, that should have been allowed at the trial. Not to mention dismissing his charges of illegally obtaining a gun, crossing state lines, then using it in the act of a crime.

I hadn't been back to this topic, so sorry for the late response. I can certainly understand your POV. Those incidents could go towards his personality but also, it's not the same situation (beating a girl still makes him a coward in this case.) And apparently the gun was legal, otherwise they really should've went with Felony Homicide.

I was thinking they should've went for a lesser charge, personally. Proving intent wasn't going to happen with the video footage of him actually retreating. That's what made it a self defense claim. He wasn't the aggressor in the situation.