About Critics (Part II)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

While I may not agree with all of what you say about movies, Moviebob, I will say that you present your arguments well.

Good job!

EDIT: Oh, and my friend and I love your "Big Picture" segments. Keep it up!

Wild_Marker:
Ha ha, you Americans and your crazy political fights...

Whatever, all this article made me think is how much I love Ratatouile (the movie, not the food). And yes, you can point out a movie is bad even if I liked it. That's why I don't watch reviews until after watching the movie, or I'll have bias in the theater and won't be able to enjoy it. I also do that with games, try to make my own opinion before reading any reviews.

Case in point, Pirates 4. After seeing it I gave it a "Well, it's better than Ghost Rider". Then watched Bob's review and realized I really wouldn't have enjoyed it as much, had I done it before.

Oddly enough, I try to do the opposite, and seek out reviews. I don't want to waste good time and money on a bad movie or game.

GrungyMunchy:
Good points, but you could pass on calling stupid to religious people. That really passes as stupid in itself.

Actually, I don't really get your double standard. Racist remarks pass as injustice, but bashing religious people doesn't? Do you need to be reminded that the declaration of human rights, you know, the thing you've defended time and time again, defends the equality of both races and beliefs?

Yes, it does. And it means you're free to believe pretty much anything. You're free to believe that gravity is made-up. The fact that you're allowed to believe it doesn't make it non-ridiculous.

captainjackofms:
"Thusly, while I won't cop to any kind of bias against one "side" or the other, I'll freely admit to being quite proudly biased against stupidity, injustice and lies - if and when I come up against a "creationist" film (stupidity) I'm probably going to be inclined to kick the crap out of it. When I've encountered openly homophobic/anti-gay films (re: injustice), I've typically taken them to task for it. Those pseudo-science "Global Warming doesn't exist" documentaries? They are lies, and I treat them as lies deserve."

I dunno... calling someone's beliefs that they based their life around "stupidity" seems pretty biased to me.

Yeah I have to agree here... patently calling one argument "wrong" and another "right" seems a bit biased.

Just a few things to point out -- evolution has absolutely nothing to say about how life actually started and there are things that it doesn't explain such as irreducible complexity (how certain biological mechanisms are so complex that they couldn't actually evolve [basically if they weren't exactly the way they are now they wouldn't work]). So saying that that's stupid is actually rather foolish.

Also, haven't climatologists basically declared that the world is in a cooling trend now, or "Global Cooling" (oops, they don't want to use that word because it implies that they might have *ahem* lied about some stuff, instead they're calling it "Climate Change")? I just think it's interesting that Mr. Bob claims Global Warming is completely true and not stupidity or a lie, while it turns out that it doesn't really work the way many psuedo-scientists such as Al Gore claimed.

But I digress: Bob should stick to what he's INCREDIBLY good at -- reviewing movies, not passing wholesale judgment on science plz.

Very good column, and I find myself agreeing with a lot of it even though I don't always agree with your work. What I don't quite understand, particularly given the explanations that you've now given, is why there's a need to outright insult someone who enjoys something you don't (even if, yes, you can back your side of the discussion up with facts).

Let's take the dog example from the column. To you, your mutts are great dogs. To the dog show critics, they are mongrels that have no place anywhere near a dog show. No problems so far as the critics at the show have their own objective criteria on who dogs are to be judged and they don't have the visceral heartfelt feeling and personal experience you have with your specific dogs. Is it then right if the critics start calling you a moron/douchebag/idiot/etc. simply because you like your dog (regardless, particularly, of what you think about theirs)? Does it not diminish not only your feelings towards the dog show critics but also work to erode any sense of professionalism they may have had (never mind cause you to take even less note of their objective commentary next time)?

breese:
Also, haven't climatologists basically declared that the world is in a cooling trend now, or "Global Cooling" (oops, they don't want to use that word because it implies that they might have *ahem* lied about some stuff, instead they're calling it "Climate Change")? I just think it's interesting that Mr. Bob claims Global Warming is completely true and not stupidity or a lie, while it turns out that it doesn't really work the way many psuedo-scientists such as Al Gore claimed.

Well, it's more complicated than that - and I'm speaking as a confirmed Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) skeptic. Basically, overall we are entering into a warm period, just as we did a thousand years ago during the Medieval Warm Period. The basic question is this: CO2 being a greenhouse gas, the more we put in the air, the more there will be a warming effect - but, is the effect from our own industrial CO2 sufficient to have an impact, or is it swamped in the natural forces? And, well, there are a lot of computer models, and to my knowledge ONE study that actually compared radiation from the sun coming in vs. what was bounced back out over time (and it came out against the AGW thesis). But, there is a lot of work still to do - one study is not conclusive unless it can be duplicated, after all - and a lot of politics around that work, as the AGW thesis is very convenient for environmental groups.

So, to cut a long story short (I know, too late), we are in an overall warming trend, but we have had a short-term bit of cooling. If the historical pattern is followed, we should go up at least another degree or two, which would put us in the general area of the Medieval Warm Period. And our own industrial CO2 emissions may or may not have a warming effect on top of that.

I want to watch movies like the expendables because I don't have to think about plot lines, narrative structure and interpreting emotional undertones. If a movie is a shameless action movie then don't go and get on your high horse and criticise it for its lack of emotional depth. Sit your ass down and enjoy it with a bag of popcorn. Just be happy!!!

Life's too short to complain too much :)

Mister Linton:
So, everyone pointing out how you condescend to your audience more than you critique movies made your tummy hurt huh? The only way to make that go away Bob is to cop to it, apologize, and stop doing it. Just saying that you understand why every movie is loved by someone, doesn't excuse you from insulting people for the movies they like. It just makes you a hypocrite. You have to admit you were wrong before you can be forgiven.

I honestly think that everyone complaining about this needs to learn how to take a joke. Cause in most of the reviews he does that in, its clearly a joke.

StriderShinryu:
Very good column, and I find myself agreeing with a lot of it even though I don't always agree with your work. What I don't quite understand, particularly given the explanations that you've now given, is why there's a need to outright insult someone who enjoys something you don't (even if, yes, you can back your side of the discussion up with facts).

Let's take the dog example from the column. To you, your mutts are great dogs. To the dog show critics, they are mongrels that have no place anywhere near a dog show. No problems so far as the critics at the show have their own objective criteria on who dogs are to be judged and they don't have the visceral heartfelt feeling and personal experience you have with your specific dogs. Is it then right if the critics start calling you a moron/douchebag/idiot/etc. simply because you like your dog (regardless, particularly, of what you think about theirs)? Does it not diminish not only your feelings towards the dog show critics but also work to erode any sense of professionalism they may have had (never mind cause you to take even less note of their objective commentary next time)?

I think Bob's anger comes from a few different places, but I think they can be summed up in a sort of contra-elitism. It's okay to like your mutts. It's not okay to bring them to a dog show and expect that they be hald in as high regard as purebreds, or that the reason they aren't is due to some bias, conspiracy, or ignorant judging methods on the part of the judges. It's also not okay to claim that the purebreads are somehow inferior to your mutts, simply because you like them more, or to turn down a purebred because you only want to own mutts.

Bob's alread covered how so much fcous on cheap sequals is cutting off more original works in his Big Pitcure videos so I won't say much but to agree with him that yes, for all the braid dead / popcorn movies and "safe" sequals and adaptations, we really could stand to take a risk every so often on a new property just to encourage some creativity in Hollywood. The rest, well what can I say, Bob's against ignorance, and when you think Bob's hatered of the Expendables comes from a hatred of brain dead action, while ignoring his reviews of A-Team, 2012, Piranah and GI Joe (among others), you are arguing out of ignorance. When you slap labels like "elisit" or "liberal" as the only defense to a list of criticisms, you are arguing out of ignorance. Not using the internet to find out about obscure films (or films with confusing advertising like Scott Pilgirm): ignorance. Judging a movie by the cast list: ignorance. And yes, beleiving that your unquantified gut reaction should trump even a semi professional list of criticisms: ignorance.

Or in short, it's okay to like what you like. We all have our guilty pleasures. Just don't expect those with a more quantified (or even qualified) opinion to take your emotional reaction as a counter arguement. It'd be one thing to say "you didn't think [scene X] in the Expendables was rather cool (I can't think of one myself) or [character B]'s arc was interesting in such a way?" If you can't, don't argue, just accept that you like it, someone else doesn't and that doesn't invalidate your enjoyment. And if you don't like a critic's personal tastes, find another. Rotten Tomatoes is full of critics. You can probably find one that won't rag on anything you like.

And Bob, as a fellow bitter, cynical hater of stupid people, I salute you.

You still don't get it do you?
I don't know who levels these questions at you, other than perhaps the " not every movie has to be deep, special, etc" stuff, but this is not why people have a problem with you Bob

Its your condescending attitude, the ideas you propose like having 5 million other gadgets being viable to replace computers( this has to be one of the most nonsensical things I've ever heard you say), calling people who didn't like Metroid other M racists and just insulting everyone who generally doesn't like anything you do

You get it now? I couldn't care less that you have opinion,thats great, spout it and entertain people but for christs sake, when you talk about something you CLEARLY have no knowledge about or insult people for having different tastes from yours, understand thats where the problem is

Instead you've completely missed those complaints, ignoring them and making up what you think people are saying so you can feel like your coming from some sort of moral high ground with your opinions
Well done

Ok, Bob. At least it's reassuring that you're not so high on yourself as to think of yourself as the be-all, end-all, final word on movies (which would truly make you an elitist).

That having been said, I still fully intend to see Transformers: Dark of the Moon, and I'll probably end up enjoying it in spite of you and in spite of myself. So if you want to lump me in with the "frat boy douchebags" whom you perceive to go to these kinds of movies and enjoy them, so be it. I'll enjoy my Saturday morning cartoon for adults, which is how I regard it, thank you very much. For the record, though, I also liked both Thor and X-Men: First Class for a lot of the same reasons you did. So I think that defies such easy classification.

That was a lot of time spent trying to pacify the readers and their comments

AsurasFinest:
You still don't get it do you?
I don't know who levels these questions at you, other than perhaps the " not every movie has to be deep, special, etc" stuff, but this is not why people have a problem with you Bob

Its your condescending attitude, the ideas you propose like having 5 million other gadgets being viable to replace computers( this has to be one of the most nonsensical things I've ever heard you say), calling people who didn't like Metroid other M racists and just insulting everyone who generally doesn't like anything you do

You get it now? I couldn't care less that you have opinion,thats great, spout it and entertain people but for christs sake, when you talk about something you CLEARLY have no knowledge about or insult people for having different tastes from yours, understand thats where the problem is

Instead you've completely missed those complaints, ignoring them and making up what you think people are saying so you can feel like your coming from some sort of moral high ground with your opinions
Well done

I can't recall a single paragraph he's ever wrote or said (Hyperbole, don't get smart with me) without the pacifying qualifier "this is my own opinion, not the end all truth".

Every human entity has at some point (likely very many points per day) offended or insulted others based on opinion. No one has the power to avoid that short of never voicing their opinion, or not possessing one.

He runs multiple opinion shows, he's going to have them and voice them.
Feel free to dislike them, I know I occasionally do.
But the root numbers here, things like religion have entirely different languages.

One side knows there is a benevolent creature that created all things, the other knows that that defies logic and theorized a chain of events that they can see and interact with in the real world.
From a deep religious perspective it's "Stupid" to willingly and defiantly condemn yourself to hell (or whatever) for pride and a lack of faith despite all the teachings that show how wrong that path is.
That is a reasonable scientific conclusion based on facts they accept as truth.

It's no different for the other party to believe it foolish to blindly follow nonexistence based on outdated and superstitious theories. I'd concede your point that voicing it isn't the nicest thing but this has already been excluded by the opening to this post.
He's paid to voice it, it is his job to explain to you why he did or did not like certain things.

TL:DR?
Some opinions are impossible to sway.
The existence of some opinions are at their core, always offensive.
You can't always shelter your opinions for fear of hurting others, especially when you are paid not to.

Sylocat:

GrungyMunchy:
Good points, but you could pass on calling stupid to religious people. That really passes as stupid in itself.

Actually, I don't really get your double standard. Racist remarks pass as injustice, but bashing religious people doesn't? Do you need to be reminded that the declaration of human rights, you know, the thing you've defended time and time again, defends the equality of both races and beliefs?

Yes, it does. And it means you're free to believe pretty much anything. You're free to believe that gravity is made-up. The fact that you're allowed to believe it doesn't make it non-ridiculous.

Oh. Well that must mean I can call black people stupid because I think that they're stupid because they're black.

Nice argument over there.

Thanks Bob! Whenever I'll feel disgruntled by a critic's opinion next time, I'll just think back to your article.

But yea, keep away from religion please. I'm sure you would defend Jews from racists any day of the year, but Jews are defined by their religion, and as such Christians should be equally defended. By which I mean respected, seeing how everyone's entitled to his own opinions and beliefs, like you just pointed out.

...wait, now it's just confusing.

MovieBob:
"Not EVERY movie needs to be smart, meaningful or original."

This is actually quite true.

Also quite true: Food doesn't need to taste good; it merely needs to provide nutrient energy. Clothing doesn't need to look good; it merely needs to shield the epidermis from the elements. Sex does not require romance, meaningful connection or even attraction - merely the joining of interlocking parts and the exchange of fluids. You get the idea.

And this is where your whole argument breaks down. Lots of food is good because it isn't original. My mother's fried chicken is meaningful, and smart, but she's made it hundreds of times so it isn't original.

Many excellent movies are smart and meaningful but not terribly original. This is where the jaded nature of being a critic fails them. Much like the Nintendo E3 presenter said consumers want both the familiar and new. Sure a truly extraordinary movie will be smart, meaningful and original, but that doesn't make everything else junk food.

Fair enough I suppose.
I fucking love Expendables, however it has literally no thought to it at all, nothing.
I watch shit like Futurama, ugly americans, johnny bravo...etc. Because I like being distracted by no thought devices. I don't give a shit what you think, or at least I shouldn't.

Sounds reasonable, I apologize for my expendables comment. (as if you would possibly remember it.)

I still think your head is up your ass more than other critics, but I don't think you're an dick anymore.

So, uh, Bob, do you also denounce the incredibly stupid "Global Warming will Destroy the Earth if All Human Progress is not Stopped Immediately" people as ignorant alarmists? Because they are, and far more malicious than the rather foolish people who try to argue against various government policies that are (in theory) supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by arguing ineffectively that there's no global warming.

Is there global warming? Yes. Is it a disaster worth getting hysterical about and giving the government the power to regulate everything and anything as a result? Nah, and, in fact, anyone who hasn't bothered to educate themselves enough that they still consider global warming to be some sort of catastrophe-in-the-making is precisely the sort of ignorant slob you seem to dislike so strenuously.

You are a liberal Bob, and even said so yourself just now. It's just that like most liberals you don't want to accept what you are, and simply choose to define yourself as being "correct". That is also incidently why so many problems today are not resolved, and we have the US at least divided pretty much right down the middle.

Let me put it into perspective here, "Gay Rights" is a big issue in the US. You will say "well I am outraged by *injustice* when I see such people discriminated against or by people who view them poorly", and that right there is what makes you a liberal. There is an entire other side to that which your going to inherantly dismiss as "stupid", "ignorant", or "based on debunked junk science", which in turn defines the problem and the conflict.

Without getting into more conreversial arguements, there is a central issue here of the rights of a small minority of people, against that of the majority. Regardless of the reason a lot of gay rights issues come down to the basic arguement that huge groups of people are being asked to not just tolerate, but to embrace a set of behaviors they do not like or agree with for one reason or another. Your basic sentiments are that the majority of people should have no rights in dealing with a minority group, and should basically have to suck it up, their reasons for the attitude being irrelevent to the equasion, this doesn't bother you, so everyone else should just have to deal with it.

The differance between tolerance and being forced to embrace something, can sort of be found in your "Hangover 2" review. Nobody was saying "OMG, a 'transgender' kill it" or anything like that. Rather you had people being grossed out and going on about how wrong it is, which a lot of people would agree with. Your arguement being based on acceptance, as opposed to tolerance, and there is a distinction.

I'm not going to engage in a big arguement on gay rights, and this goes well beyond that one issue, the point is that you (Bob) are most definatly a liberal, and also someone who I doubt could be reasoned with on such things, because you would defy any "reason" being behind the other side and go looking for any excuse to not accept what is being said, and that's true of a lot of things.

In general you put the rights of minorities of people, ahead of the rights and desires of the majority. You would argue that this is one of the principles the USA was founded on, where many people opposing you would point out that the country was founded in the spirit of democracy which is simply put an ideal of majority rule where everyone votes and whatever the majority of people support is what the society does (albiet we're a Representitive Republic, but still the spirit of the founding). It can also be pointed out that for all mis-representation of principles, the founding fathers were hardly a group of tolerant liberals, many being slave owners and everything else. It is true that we have progressed morally on a lot of levels, but in doing so we have created conflicts like this within the spirit of our society. For all their bold words about the rights of men, it should be noted that the founding fathers would never have tolerated a lot of the issues we have today by their very nature, and the laws, attitudes, and speeches were based very much on their somewhat limited point of view at the time.

At any rate, the point here is that even beyond anything else you support minority rights over those of the majority. You basically argue that tolerance is not enough, since simply letting a group of people exist and mind their own business doesn't matter to you if they are effectively treated as pariahs.... and that is an exceedingly liberal point of view.

Me, my sentiments go beyond any one minority group in the US. I actually feel that being too accepting has lead to a lot of the big issues in society today, and one of the reasons why a lot of problems elude a solution is simply because we won't single out groups of people even when we need to, irregardless of the nature of those groups.

I don't expect you to agree with me, heck I know we're pretty much political opposites on many things, I'm just saying that you are most definatly a liberal despite wanting to say your politically independant. Or more correctly your to the far left on the issues that come up in your videos. I wouldn't worry too much about it however (which I'm guessing you do, hence these rants), to be honest a lot of liberals in the entertainment and media fields seem to be in denial, which is part of why you see so many people saying that the overall slant doesn't exist when it does.

Me, I tend to actually lean more towards the needs of the majority and society in general usually. Like everything, there are exceptions, but I tend to be a realist in a "big picture" kind of way, even when it's not very nice on a personal level, and doesn't benefit me.

As far as all this stuff that can be said about "evil white men" goes and how "easy I have it" due to the fact that I'm part of the majority... well according to a lot of the math, us white dudes aren't going to be the majority in the USA in about a decade. All of our "racist" policies and principles, especially when it comes to accepting people from all over the world, and our fairly tolerant (despite criticisms) policies on border control and criticism have basically resulted in us ceding the majority to another group. In a decade by the numbers Latinos/Hispanics will outnumber white guys, and a few decades after that I expect this to be increasingly reflected in society. In my old age I expect I'll be at something of a disadvantage if I don't speak Spanish as well. Suffice it to say, from my perspective we're in for some interesting times ahead, and I'm kind of curious what liberals will do when they no longer have the "evil white majority" to point fingers at. I suppose we'll have to transition into a large majority of oppressors or something just to keep the political target of choice valid.

Therumancer:
snip

The United States is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic built around [I]representative[/i] democracy - the entire purpose of which is to PREVENT the majority from overriding the minority by simple force of numbers. Popular-consensus does not equal truth, nor does it equal justice.

At various times in our history, "the majority" has believed that slavery was a benign practice, that race and/or gender determined the degree of personhood, that the Earth was the center of the universe, that humans emerged fully-formed from a magical garden after getting bad advice about apples from a snake and that the world was a disc balanced atop five elephants; and neither the number of believers in such nor the sincerity of their beliefs made them any less WRONG.

You are, of course, entitled to the opinion that majority-rule is just - plenty of people agree, and plenty of societies - some of them quite successful in their own way - have been arranged that way. But for good or ill its a viewpoint fundamentally incompatible with America; and I'm rather glad for that. Injustice reigns when "The Many" hold overwhelming power over The Few. Or The One.

MovieBob:

Therumancer:
snip

The United States is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic built around [I]representative[/i] democracy - the entire purpose of which is to PREVENT the majority from overriding the minority by simple force of numbers. Popular-consensus does not equal truth, nor does it equal justice.

At various times in our history, "the majority" has believed that slavery was a benign practice, that race and/or gender determined the degree of personhood, that the Earth was the center of the universe, that humans emerged fully-formed from a magical garden after getting bad advice about apples from a snake and that the world was a disc balanced atop five elephants; and neither the number of believers in such nor the sincerity of their beliefs made them any less WRONG.

You are, of course, entitled to the opinion that majority-rule is just - plenty of people agree, and plenty of societies - some of them quite successful in their own way - have been arranged that way. But for good or ill its a viewpoint fundamentally incompatible with America; and I'm rather glad for that. Injustice reigns when "The Many" hold overwhelming power over The Few. Or The One.

I myself mentioned that we are a Representitive Republic. However we were still formed under the idea of majority rule, with the power resting in the hands of a person to vote. When someone says "your vote doesn't count, because there are too many of you" well that kind of defeats the entire point of the system. Our protections mostly exist to prevent people from voting away certain rights under political manipulation, or at least to make it EXTREMELY difficult for it to happen.

The problem with your arguement is of course that in saying "hey you were wrong about all of this stuff" doesn't really work when you consider that America was formed under the assumption that most of that was true. A lot of our current problems as a society exist because the way it was intended to run, runs contrary to desicians that were later made
about right and wrong.

Now don't get me wrong, the changes we've made over time are not always a bad thing. However, at the core of a lot of modern political debates is simply that issue, if a minority of people are going to be able to overrule the majority and get whatever it wants, why even bother to have a vote, a political process, or anything else?

Where I personally draw the line is between tolerance and acceptance. I will accept the right of a group of people to exist, but I also believe it's people's right to not have to accept them. Basically, we're not going to round up minorities and kill them, but at the same time people have the right to decide who they want to associate and deal with, and cumulatively this means society as a whole might not be a very nice place for members of certain groups that manage to pretty much rub the overwhelming majority of people the wrong way. After all, everyone has the same rights, the majority has the right to not be infringed on just as much as a minority does.

... and I'm sorry to tell you this, but while you might disagree with me, I'm not wrong.... But then again neither are you. That is why issues like this are the result of massive political battles that have divided the country, and go well beyond what is going to be decided by an arguement on The Internet.

The issue here isn't to argue my overall political stance, how much we disagree, and even probably find some things we might agree on connected to this, but to point out that you ARE a liberal, at least in regards to the positions you've been taking online... and all the people like you in similar positions who express these same kinds of opinions are what results in a liberal bias.

To be honest with you though I don't think either "side" can win. See, even on these issues I'm actually somewhere towards the middle of the political pack. I won't break down what I said into specifics, but let's just say that some of my more conservative aquaintences think I'm a bloody hippy, due to not taking things far enough. In the end if these issues are resolved we'll probably find the resolution far closer to where I am, than where you are for that reason. Simply because what your saying more or less amounts to the overwhelming number of people having no say over how society is run. Saying "your vote doesn't count because it's not keeping with what this minority group wants" castrates the system just as much as saying "your vote doesn't count because it's not keeping with what these nobles want". Same thing, just coming from a differant echelon of society.

MovieBob:
MovieBob: About Critics (Part II)

Here's why MovieBob has been ignoring some of your other complaints.

Read Full Article

ok love your reveiws and i dont think all critics are libral but some are and if you smart you can tell the difference. ive always seen you as an independent who sometimes has different opinions with what mine are(IE the releigous bashing you just did. not cool man.) now i love your reveiws and your big picture shows but please PLEASE stop with the insaulting people in broad strokes its kinda off putting and makes you sound like an ass.

What I don't get, is how people get all worked up when they don't agree with something they have seen / read on the internet. It's almost like they need constant reaffirmation that their beliefs are correct, and simply cannot accept that people might disagree with them. I find people complaining about Bob / Jim Sterling on a similar plane to console fanboyism. Case in point, read some of these comments about Edge Magazine giving Infamous2 a 6/10. http://www.next-gen.biz/reviews/infamous-2-review.

I can generally get behind your format of how you do reviews, but the way you handle things outside of reviews, say, people who choose to believe a religion like Christianity is an ironic dose of intolerance. Surely there was a better way of addressing your opinion without annoying either side. Even reviewers younger than yourself manages this - even if they *really* find religion or a lack thereof annoying.

PlasticTree:
"Pseudo-science "Global Warming doesn't exist" documentaries".

..

That sounds horrible.

Yeah. They're as bad as the psuedo-science documentaries that argue that global warming does exist. But they're nowhere near as bad as the pseudo-science documentaries that argue that our planet is run by shape-shifting lizard-men.
And no, I shit you not, those are real.
Edit: The documentaries, I mean; not the shape-shifting lizard-men.

GrungyMunchy:

Sylocat:

GrungyMunchy:
Good points, but you could pass on calling stupid to religious people. That really passes as stupid in itself.

Actually, I don't really get your double standard. Racist remarks pass as injustice, but bashing religious people doesn't? Do you need to be reminded that the declaration of human rights, you know, the thing you've defended time and time again, defends the equality of both races and beliefs?

Yes, it does. And it means you're free to believe pretty much anything. You're free to believe that gravity is made-up. The fact that you're allowed to believe it doesn't make it non-ridiculous.

Oh. Well that must mean I can call black people stupid because I think that they're stupid because they're black.

Nice argument over there.

I think there are two differences between racism and calling some religious people stupid. Firstly Bob only mentioned religion on the subject Creationist these are people who want claim that there own personally beliefs are the truth any, this in it self makes them stupid as there own beliefs have nothing that actual truth has to support it, you know like evidence. what Bob i think is saying (i am no mind reader) is that calling stupid people stupid is alright. The second thing that makes this different from racism is that it a choice (what ever that word means) to be a particular religion and if people want to put it on the public stage then there is nothing wrong with criticising them for being ignorant.

though if Bob was just calling all peoples from all religions stupid then it would be a double standard.

hopefully that all made sense.

GrungyMunchy:

Sylocat:

GrungyMunchy:
snip

Yes, it does. And it means you're free to believe pretty much anything. You're free to believe that gravity is made-up. The fact that you're allowed to believe it doesn't make it non-ridiculous.

Oh. Well that must mean I can call black people stupid because I think that they're stupid because they're black.

Nice argument over there.

Um, yeah, it does mean that. You're free to think something idiotic like that. And I'm free to call you out on it being idiotic. That's kind of my point.

Sylocat:

GrungyMunchy:

Sylocat:
Yes, it does. And it means you're free to believe pretty much anything. You're free to believe that gravity is made-up. The fact that you're allowed to believe it doesn't make it non-ridiculous.

Oh. Well that must mean I can call black people stupid because I think that they're stupid because they're black.

Nice argument over there.

Um, yeah, it does mean that. You're free to think something idiotic like that. And I'm free to call you out on it being idiotic. That's kind of my point.

And in turn I can call you an idiot because you don't think like me (as you do too)? That sounds really productive and mature. I really hope you don't go on in your life calling stupid to everyone who doesn't agree with you, it won't take you very far.

RJ Dalton:
So no, the "left/right question" does not really get argued outside of the United States.

Really? Funny, that. I live in England, and I've heard it plenty of times. People equate 'traditional values' with conservatism - I've even read a book by a conservative columnist who puts much of the blame for what he calls the "disgusting state of the country" on Richard Dawkins and his ilk, because if more people went to church the world would be a better place. People with these views often, but not always, seem to be drawn towards the Conservative party, quite possibly because they heard the word 'conservative' and it sends up a red flag rather than because they agree with the politics.

The difference here is that the distinction doesn't seep through to mainstream politics quite so much. We don't bisect our populace and then spend our time hating everyone on the other side for everything we perceive as "leftist" or "far-right". My point was that, while America makes the left/right divide the heart and soul of its political landscape, the same divide still occurs elsewhere albeit with less people paying attention.

intheweeds:
We have three major parties in Canada. More if you count the Green Party and Bloc Quebecois. No not everyone in the rest of the world argue about left/right.

See above :-P

GrungyMunchy:

Sylocat:

GrungyMunchy:
snip

Um, yeah, it does mean that. You're free to think something idiotic like that. And I'm free to call you out on it being idiotic. That's kind of my point.

And in turn I can call you an idiot because you don't think like me (as you do too)? That sounds really productive and mature. I really hope you don't go on in your life calling stupid to everyone who doesn't agree with you, it won't take you very far.

That's... kind of the whole point. You're free to believe things which are demonstrably (and demonstratEDly) untrue. Believing something like that is stupid, regardless of who else believes in it. It's not a matter of agreeing with me or not, because guess what: Reality doesn't care what you think. That's why it's called "reality."

breese:

Just a few things to point out -- evolution has absolutely nothing to say about how life actually started

It's not trying to. That's like discounting it because it doesn't answer "how do they get the fig in a fig roll. Also, god doesn't answer it in any intellectually satisfying way either (ie, not raising more questions and not being based solely on assumption).

and there are things that it doesn't explain such as irreducible complexity (how certain biological mechanisms are so complex that they couldn't actually evolve [basically if they weren't exactly the way they are now they wouldn't work]). So saying that that's stupid is actually rather foolish.

Care to name an example?

Also, haven't climatologists basically declared that the world is in a cooling trend now, or "Global Cooling" (oops, they don't want to use that word because it implies that they might have *ahem* lied about some stuff, instead they're calling it "Climate Change")? I just think it's interesting that Mr. Bob claims Global Warming is completely true and not stupidity or a lie, while it turns out that it doesn't really work the way many psuedo-scientists such as Al Gore claimed.

The earth heats up and cools down. In the 70's and 80's we were told we were headed for a new ice age. Earth is heating up, the question is are we to blame (I doubt it).

Sylocat:

GrungyMunchy:

Sylocat:
Um, yeah, it does mean that. You're free to think something idiotic like that. And I'm free to call you out on it being idiotic. That's kind of my point.

And in turn I can call you an idiot because you don't think like me (as you do too)? That sounds really productive and mature. I really hope you don't go on in your life calling stupid to everyone who doesn't agree with you, it won't take you very far.

That's... kind of the whole point. You're free to believe things which are demonstrably (and demonstratEDly) untrue. Believing something like that is stupid, regardless of who else believes in it. It's not a matter of agreeing with me or not, because guess what: Reality doesn't care what you think. That's why it's called "reality."

I'm not talking about believing someone is stupid, you idiot. I'm talking about voicing that belief. It's the difference between being a funcioning person in society and just being a jackass.

Oh Bob, I'd hoped you were working on my pet peeve. It's not as bad as it used to be. But not only wasn't it addressed, you're still doing it a little.

If you don't like a movie and can specify why, that's great. It's why you write reviews. But there's no need to characterize the people you assume disagree with you! Just say "the ending is forced and cliche", not that it was made for right wing / left wing / frat boy / emo / hipsters. (Oh wait, you decried that last term after someone used it on you.)

Reasonable people can disagree on movies. It's why they're fun to discuss. Reasonable people don't go "and it would have been better if not for all you morons!"

p.s. The great political divide is "freedom from government" vs "freedom from life via government". It has been that way for centuries. The labels for these however get mixed around and bundled with side issues according to the marketing needs of the day.

GrungyMunchy:
I'm not talking about believing someone is stupid, you idiot. I'm talking about voicing that belief. It's the difference between being a funcioning person in society and just being a jackass.

Way to make your point here :P.

Turtleboy1017:
sniped

I get your point, man, but the problem is with people thinking they need to follow everything about MovieBob's review, not with his making reviews. He has his own tastes. He is honest about that. However when he reviews a movie he does explain what he liked or disliked, and that means when I watch a review of his, I get an idea if I'll like it or not, regardless of whether Bob did.

I find his reviews most useful for a few things though: 1) getting to hear about movies I hadn't heard of or wouldn't have given a chance to, and 2) hearing what he has to say about movies I have already seen.

In the first case, even if I decide not to go see it, I wasn't going to in the first place. And I might decide to go see it. In the second case, it give me insights on why this or that might have been put in a movie that I didn't like (and make me understand the movie better, regardless of disliking it) or understand what was lacking from a movie I liked. It's from his point of view, yes, but his point of view interests me, that's why I watch his reviews.

If your friends don't buy mutts because someone tells them "mutts won't get prizes" and they care about the prizes, it's a good reason not to get a mutt. As far as people who don't because some guy told them mutts suck, well if you really love mutts, you'll get one anyways, right?

I agree he could lay it off on the insults, but it doesn't prevent me from enjoying his videos/articles. Plus I don't think making a post on the forums is going to change that.

Avistew:

GrungyMunchy:
I'm not talking about believing someone is stupid, you idiot. I'm talking about voicing that belief. It's the difference between being a funcioning person in society and just being a jackass.

Way to make your point here :P.

I wrote that for two reasons: first because by the way he's exposing his argument, he must be okay with that. And second, because he really is being an idiot, independently of his faith or race, which is the point of this discussion.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here