MovieChat Forums > Grifterhunter > Replies
Grifterhunter's Replies
No they do not I disagree. There are plenty of signs of hidden motives. He wants people to claim voter fraud because if he gets people to buy off on that he gets a get out of jail free card if he ever loses. It is not just that he also wants to be president so he can get out of all of his crimes. So no it does not seem ok.
If this were Trump you would not be saying this.
It is but that is not what you are doing. You are bypassing any Trump flaws because he is part of your desired party. Obama and Biden you will not bypass because they are not part of your party. You have made that obvious.
Not buying that sorry. You judge him differently because you are partisan.
So um you were saying...
Obama dealt with people fighting against him for lots of policies he tried to implement as well. And no I am not buying your claims about Trump being some great president.
And it is mighty convenient you do not question the end goal or motive of Trump. He failed to deliver on many promises of his campaign. This is where your defense is well no president delivers on all their promises. Which while true highlights your biased approach. I myself do think Biden is a failure but I do not view Trump as some shining example of a moral human or good president.
It is on you to prove they were released. Otherwise be happy that they were deported. Since that obviously is something you want. You vote based on your own self interests without wanting to compromise what could be best for the country. What if you flip that? What if an illegal immigrant says I am voting for Biden because it is in my best interest to stay here and not be deported?
I also do not agree with that statement. That is shallow and reductive. Trump is also anti-gun yet I hear him get no flak for the policies he wants to implement. Yet someone will criticize the democrats for the exact same thing with guns. Why does he get a pass on that? I myself do not view immigration the same way you do.
So if Trump does it it is because of a just cause, if a democrat does it there is an ulterior motive? That sounds rather convenient to me. Even if you wanted to argue it is for a different motive shouldn't you be happy it was done? It is like if a person stops by and gives you a wad of cash for free. Could it be for them to look good yes but isn't that cash you did not have before? It comes off as you care about who is doing the actions or policy rather than what is being done. If a person says inspiring true words it does not matter who it comes from but if what being said is true or not.
I can agree.
No I meant exactly what I said. I have said nothing about Vermont being overall racist. I just think your claim about that bi-partisan agreement is often used to dismiss claims which could be valid. The effects do not disappear just because a law or policy is taken into effect. Were the effects of the Holocaust wiped away the minute it was over?
I already stated I did not agree with doing that to Vermont or labeling any group unfairly.
And there are sources which will praise America and are incapable of criticizing it. This goes both ways.
There are sources or people who will call someone anti-American if they criticize this country.
I disagree with that also. You act as if all sources do this. No only ones that unfair do that. Same way that some sources will swear this is the best country in the world despite the fact that we are not the best at everything. There are other countries which rank higher in education and have better healthcare than us.
I agree being biased both ways is unhealthy. You can praise America without worshipping it and being blind to it's faults. Someone can criticize it without being anti-American and being blind to it's successes.
I responded to your claim not his. I also openly said that there was a bi-partisan agreement I just do not agree with how you and others attempt to frame it. Simply because that occurred does it mean the effects of racism disappeared. Just like how when the Holocaust ended the effects were felt for a long time afterwards.
This happens on the other end as well. Both sides need to be fair. Including him.
No you asked the other person that question not me. I responded to a claim you made. My point stands you should be able to praise or criticize America. Praise where it is deserved and criticism where it is deserved. I've seen people try to silence someone on either end. Which is wrong. I can praise the things here I like without being a blind worshipper and I can criticize this place and not be anti-American.
I openly started with stating that.... Yes that consensus was reached. Like I originally said though that doesn't mean that when that happened all the effects of racism disappeared because of it. We strive to make things as fair as possible. It's not realistic to make things 100% fair but we can do a better job than we currently are doing right now. So to act as if everything got fixed after that consensus is simply not true.
Just because that law and consensus was reached does it mean that the effects of the past disappeared because of that.
So then what you are saying is there has been an attempt at course correction. So back then tons has no issues with only highlighting America. Aren't doing both things wrong? I remember anytime someone points out flaws it was because you hated America. You should be able to criticize America and not be considered anti-American. Same thing the other way.
You could counter act that and say history is not all about highlighting the good we have done either. It is a balance. Plenty of people will gladly want to omit the negative this country has done. History can not be sugarcoated. We have done good but if we acknowledge the good we also must acknowledge the bad. Also pointing out history is not self hate it is teaching history. I could counter that and say that highlighting the good is us just boasting about how great we are.
It is crazy how divided this country is.
That is quite the strawman you made there. Also I disagree I found his book to be absolute trash much like his analysis of films.
Not in the slightest. I just do not enjoy his content and find the people he associates with to be rather toxic.
No you are quite misinformed. Mad Max Fury Road was in 2015, Brokeback Mountain was in 2005, Boy's Don't Cry was in 1999. Did things kick up after Trump became president? Yes but it has been no secret that Hollywood has been liberal for a long time. Alien and Aliens are anti corporation and pro union. That is the message behind those films. So even if you said it was not as liberal back then it was far from neutral like you are claiming. I say this as a person who has disagreed with many things politically liberal.
This is a dumb argument as well. Why not cater to everyone? Most people are right handed should they only cater to cater to right handed people since left handed are the minority? Heelsvsbabyface is making mountains out of mole hills. She is dumb as well. Just because she did something on the opposite end does it make ok for what Heelsvsbabyface did.
We can agree to disagree. I wish no ill will.
I never said there are not people out there who have an issue with Hollywood. I also did not say people can not share their thoughts. I am pointing out how he caters to a specific audience that loves to have their political ideology validated. AVGN's videos are not outrage porn. He was portraying a character that people found funny and entertaining. It did not become an us vs them mindset with the AVGN audience. That is what the Drinker's audience has turned into. Any hint of a left leaning ideology in a film and boom they circle it like a pack of hyenas. Us vs them is quite apparent. So no him and AVGN are worlds apart. I got news for you, Hollywood has always been liberal this is not some big secret. AVGN videos made people laugh not get outraged and adopt the us vs them mindset. I can tell Drinker's audience by the things they say. You can critique things without being political. Jeremy Jahns is a prime example of this. He built his audience off of being charismatic, quick witted and funny. Do I always agree with his takes. Nope. Do I call him a grifter? No.
Does the pronoun affect the gameplay in any way? If not then why does it matter if it is there? Who doesn't want it there? So the developers have to cater to you? How about you do not make a mountain out of a mole hill? I would not even known about that had I not seen his meltdown. Mainly because I do not play videogames much these days as I find them dull. As a game company you aim to cater to as big of an audience as you can. That is simple marketing. It is easy to ignore this and continue playing the game. No one is forcing you to choose that option.
My argument was that the twist can work. When you pointed out how that is bad writing to have a twin I pointed out the Prestige because I find that to be an excellent film. I was also showing you that no you are the one who has that rule of not wanting a twin as a twist. Any story can work including the twin twist.
Standard is good writing but you implied that having a twin is bad writing. That is your opinion not a standard. You say Glass onion is bad but that is your opinion. In my opinion it is good. So when you are stating it is just a bad film that is according to you.
I never threw that logic at you. So you projected other people's views onto me. I will voice my opinion and watch whatever I please. Please do not project things onto me when I never told you to stop watching things you find issue with or to not voice your opinion. Why are you so hung up on me calling him a grifter? Do you honestly think he has no motivation at all in constantly pointing out politics in the movies he criticizes? He will have people amped up and ready to hate a movie before it even gets released. A woke movie is not bad by default. A movie that is poorly made is a bad movie plain and simple. Mad Max Fury Road is a feminist film. Turns out it was really well made. The Boys has wokeness in it as well, but it is well written. Ok even if you want me to call him a grifter you have to admit he loves outrage porn. That is what he is built off of. AVGN videos were not outrage porn. People found them hilarious no one got outraged politically.
Um I am calling complete bs on that. Did you watch HeelsvsBabyface's pronouns video? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/LFcimOxc6LY Just a glimpse in case you missed his rant. So no with that video alone that proved your statement is untrue. Oh they are fine with politics so long as it caters to their politics. There are still good movies made today you just have to hunt for them.