Chronicle (2012) Movie Reaction Mashup

the source of healing & resolve is usually the source of the pain itself. And the source of that vitriol for him, was his father. Therapy could've possibly helped the boy see past his father, but what Andrew needed beyond an appointment, was hope & a better father, or a supplant father figure, a mentor, simple as that.

No one needs to sit in a chair, & pay me in order for me to tell them that, common sense stuff.

Therapy is a business, not a charity.

The go to isn't therapy 24/7, it's purpose, it's hope. Something you achieve on your own time.

Andrew needed hope, emotionally available hope.

So much of what we blow out of proportion in our minds can be fixed with our own will, you just need people around you with wisdom. And if you lack that network, then therapy is the way.

But just running to therapy skips the natural resolution process which is two simple things: Purpose & hope = something to live for.

Andrew just had bad luck & bad judgement.

Soma 2015 - a Tedious & Mediocre gem

 Finished it today. Great movie, plenty creepy; but a mediocre "game".

The ending was abrupt & wet fizzle but fitting, because Simon spends a lot of the first few events of the game killing people to get an outcome he wants so the ending is just pure karma.

The characters are flat, tedious objectives, the enemies had good enough variety visually, some of them operate by sight, some by sound, some just don't like movements.

That variety is appreciated but they didn't lean hard enough into the inner ecosystem of WAU's kingdom & the diversity of said creatures, I was actually surprised at how basic the roster was for the enemies. But they are plenty creepy, what defeats that is how annoying they are.

Can't tell you how many times I ran into a few head first out of defiance cause I really REALLLY wanted to beat the snot out of those screaming, shrilling spazoids. Wasn't even scary anymore.

Otherwise they are mostly the same chase bot, they are at their scariest just before you face them, like a brief glimpse of one through a window, or their silhouette. While isolated in an empty hallway, knowing you have to go in that room to get what you need, Cath is on sleep mode, and it's just you.

#That is the horror of SOMA at it's best, until you get used to it.

The fact that you aren't human but all you can do is run & hide was a horrible decision. Not taking advantage of the techno-organic angle, I'm not saying give us a damn plasma rifle but a taser, a gauntlet, 10 second cloak or limited resource means of defense would've added variety & tactics without becoming braindead.

I mean jfc, you are in a state of the art Lab facility. So you're telling me we can fist WAU a hundred times for HP but not get a buff? DO SOMETHING WITH THAT concept to enhance the player's experience!

The word is "monotonous"

* Vs a contrived sense of tension because you simply aren't allowed to resist enemies who at best just push you really hard, then walk away, which shiver me timbers-- really isn't that scary. Which is why I say they're scariest BEFORE you get to them.

It's tedious. Especially when some enemies literally teleport, which is just frustrating.

The setting is great for horror, the atmosphere is the #1 best part about it, not even close to Dead Space 2008 but it's still good atmosphere.

In fact if all you heard were monstrous voices in the walls, shadowy figures peeking around corners, the sounds of things being knocked over by something but you didn't see any enemies clearly but always anticipated one because of the acoustics, that might have-- MIGHT have been better slow burn horror.. serious mind games. Like Dead Space 2008.

* Another good part of the game is getting nuggets of what other people's lives were like & seldom seeing their fates, but that's not the same as getting invested in who these people were, it's just easter egg hunts of something more interesting than what we're currently doing.

The difference between that and what Dead Space did is we knew those crew were gone, but these people are on the ARK. And we get bare bones lore at best.

The story is otherwise bland & boring because we're just thrown into the mix without having a vantage point of legitimate motivations, and a lot of it has to do with the character we play.

Catherine should've been the MC, & we see flashbacks of WAU's takeover (not talking a highlight reel but just enough to give us context), life before, all throughout the game.

Visuals to give us something/ something better, more tangible to invest in.

Teamed with us getting more focus on someone who was directly involved in the establishment, vs some rando who time traveled technically & frankly has zero stake in anything, and isn't interesting in the slightest. We should've been Cath or Brandon.

Would've made for stronger characterizations & investment if we got Catherine at the helm instead, hear her various dialogues about seeing people she used to work with trying to kill her, the psychological horror of a familiar space becoming your tomb.

Now what we got wasn't all bad, her existential comments on being a disembodied voice were good moments, having her reality paused everytime she was "disconnected" was interesting, but that intrigue is what? Less than 3% of the total interactive experience? Cause most of it she blacks out while we're doing all the work.

There was absolutely nothing here to get truly invested in beyond "what could this be about" or just the superficial appeal of the environments atmosphere, then you get what the hype was about and it's just some typical superficial robo crap. The more it unfolded, my immediate thought was: "that's it?"

I can give it this much, it begins very very strong and it ends.......seldom satisfactory, again ,it fits. But the meat of the matter is just a nothing burger.

The issue with this game is it's build up is top notch, but it builds up to a lot of mediocrity. The most interesting stuff in it, we hear about than seeing it, a lot of telling, not showing. The glitchy talking robots in the beginning, unless I missed something that element was dropped damn near instantly when we got to Catherine joining the party. I would've loved to hear her talk to more possessed bots.

I get a lot of the intention is the hollow isolation, atmospheric expression, vs upfront narratives, but you need a hook beyond atmosphere & being told everything in heavy handed exposition.

The faint hope the ARK represents is clear: but we're too disconnected from the people the ARK is the symbol of hope for-- WHY should I care?

If Simon was silent as an MC, then I wouldn't demand much, like Isaac Clarke 2008. But Simon talks, and he's really not interesting, a lot of times he's annoying, he likes to make things about himself a lot when talking to Cath.

A lot of the problem here overall is the game reads like it was trying to say something than be something. The puzzles & tasks were frankly stupid time wasters, there were many events where I find out I had to play keep away with an enemy just to do a frankly simple task, & it really made me just turn off the game. Cause it's just runtime padding, pure filler.

It's not like Scorn where the world itself is worth investment, you're told nothing but what you see alone is worth pages of context.

Soma? None of that. If we had more allies, even if they were just cortex chip personas, (because in the beginning , again, we got a lot of robots with diverse personality but as we go on we get less of that) hear their fears & opinions, maybe some of them sacrifice themselves & their place on the ARK for the ARK's exodus, that might've given waaaaay more story investment than what I just finished.

And then for me personally, the post credit scene was the one part of the game that I didn't want to end, all this hype & ARK talk, to the point where it got pretentious:

Finally I get to see the damn thing, & I genuinely wanted to see what they had waiting for them in that city, whether or not if the sim would even be compatible with the people living in it, would people revolt? Get bored? Destroy it? Regrets? Virtual kids? Like how advanced is this thing?

That was always in the back of my head throughout the game, I actually thought WAU would corrupt it in some subtle way, so when we launched it into space WAU technically would've won.

I thought since how heavy the ARK is emphasized, it would've gotten more time to cook with the player actually doing something with it, guess not. obviously not.

Whereas, the other 99% of the game I couldn't get through it fast enough, while trying to give it a chance & absorbing much lore.

The talking robots were interesting, not knowing they're robots but oddly enough, after we meet Catherine, that slowly waned away, which is unfortunate.

The one person I might've felt 'something' for in terms of hook, was Brandon, that dude is a unit for what he did in that situation. How he was handled was a degree better in characterization than the others. Mainly cause of that module sim we put him through, the lore in his room, his dynamic with Alice, and where he ended up. We were slightly more interactive with him, which provided more characterization, which is what I meant by that allies pitch. This game felt like it undercooked what it had at it's disposal on purpose to sell the isolation factor.

Overall Soma is a minimalist approach to a horror game, unfortunately, as good as it begins, it didn't execute that great throughout.

Tedious & Mediocre, glad I finished it, glad I tried it. Never playing it again.

The Rise Of Female Loneliness - (It's amazing how different the narrative is when we address women's loneliness vs men)

4:40 To be fair "discouraging" someone from prioritizing oneself is not forcing someone to do that. Especially a stay at home person in post 2010, and NOT in a third world country. Society's "progress" had a hand in sabotaging women on the way to this point, but that was simply the consequence of what women wanted.

Otherwise, way too many options for women to then say you can't prioritize yourself because of metaphysical ""them" / "they"/ "society" discouraging or making it difficult, when in reality you're just too busy because of the life you chose. Imagine me blaming beauty standards for men is something done because of society, because i chose to compare myself to action stars. Is that society's fault? Or mine for doing that to myself? The gap here is accountability vs victim narrative. If you have kids, thats a given you'll have less priority but that doesn't mean you can't have any, otherwise it's an excuse. Same with men blaming women's standards, you'd be surprised how flexible women are when they actually like you. You have to find a balance yourself, if you stay at home as a wife with no kids, or have kids & you're just that coordinated, you have greater opportunity to modify having priority vs a woman in a cubicle. And even what kind of work you even choose to pursue matters, we need to think about demands of the actual career before hopping into it, how much time would you want to yourself 10 years later when you want to be with someone & slow down? Standards & expectations aren't the devil here, they're guidelines, stop blaming them and start using them. *These are things one needs to think about, none of this is something society owes you. But again it did have a hand in making it more difficult for people by allowing "progress" to go in this direction.* As if anyone in 2025 expects perfection from women when what men want is an afterthought or something to be dissected as problematic to only further discourage them from even bothering to date, since their needs are irrelevant. "Beauty standard" is code for "ideal", men will settle for anyone willing to both pay attention and perform without making their life a living hell. It's that simple. Comparing yourself to some model on Insta is a choice that stems from pressure, but it is a choice. But don't then settle for being unkept or unattractive or bland, then wonder why no one's approaching or paying attention vs the women that do try.

*You cannot have it every single way and still come out on top. Politics lied to you, women are not the main character.*

The difference between male & female loneliness or how it's addressed is victim narrative, men are usually painted as not doing something or AFRAID of rejection and women have this overtone of something being done specifically to them that's preventing their success.

aka NOT MY FAULT syndrome. Which just robs women of agency to fix the problem. You are not victims, your era failed you, yes; but not in the ways you think. This exhaustion was fought for, being able to feel that labor that men always felt came with the equality. "CONSEQUENCE" is the word missing from this video, overall decent points but the delivery & overtone is too self-defeating, some of it true, yes. Majority of it is an excuse to just externalize, so you can feel you did nothing wrong. We should take a note from Rocky's speech & stop finding someone to blame because we aren't where we want because of soft "discouragement", which is just an excuse to say one feels bad because not moving resulted in them remaining still & achieving nothing.

whats happening is the progressive world we fought for on womens behalf wasn't all sunshine and rainbows in the outcome,

what men had going on at work wasn't exactly ideal for living to the fullest for women's specific experience. That's what happened.

That's what this is really about, women not being allowed to just have it both ways as a norm package. You have to cultivate that situation, carefully & timely; it's not a birthright society owes you or us. You are not owed professional AND martial success when convenient because you might feel standards or expectations should be men's burden but not yours.. Having to bust your butt isn't fun, I 1000% back that superwoman syndrome situation, yet that came with the independent agenda. We call it superwoman but it's really just being an adult. Sacrifices have to be made to survive, and we blame having to make those exhausting sacrifices on society's rules of engagement forcing us to bend, when this is what women fought for in the first place, the opportunity to even do this much.

Post feminism-regret maybe? "What was intended vs what women got" Maybe that's worth a video for OP, if they didn't make it already.

It's not always something being done to you, i won't sit here & pretend there aren't female specific hurdles men will never know (just remember there are hurdles men deal with that women won't ever suffer either): the word is "consequence" of progress but you are not powerless in the matter either.

Batman Warehouse Fight Reaction Mashup | BvS (2016) * The obsession with the No kill-code

https://youtu.be/7LNbH9dWt0A?si=o4Qdc6_pK0rQhJJ4

 they're so hung up on the killcode, jfc ppl.

Post Crisis stories really got ppl thinking my mans is a hippie.

Like think about it, killing them is a no no but crippling em for life is A-Ok? Wtf. And I blame Arkham for that shit.

 Let's just call it like it is, this is a Batman that realized that no-kill code doesn't work. It was a luxury he thought he could afford as a Year One, he got too old to give a crap, which is the natural direction.

Fact is,  he's not Joe Chill. Batman puts down criminals, Chill killed innocent ppl. And Batfleck didn't kill all the criminals, he branded some so that others would take up the fight, which is organized vigilantism, which makes his legend even more powerful.

Even IF Batman kills, he and Chill will never be the same.

 The no-kill code was simply a vehicle to make Batman more complex and have more depth as a character & motivations (& if you've seen any of my reviews, you'll know I dig that shit, waaaay more than pretty colors and animation), but it's not necessary for Batman to work.

  He's actually cooler without the code. But having it makes him more complex because it's a principle, a rule, a discipline, him having a no killing code makes him more interesting. It's okay to admit that without making this code akin to a religious dogma that Batman has to abide by or else he's not Batman. 

He doesn't need it to be Batman, nor to work as a entity.  To be fair in reality, him being willing to go to that place but he simply chooses not to at any given moment, makes him more scary. And I thought criminals were supposed to be cared.

Which is why people take Batfleck seriously, and BatBale has the best Bruce (which a commentor has stated before) but his Batman is weak. If that dude was  killing people, I guarantee you after everyone was done clutching their pearls, they'd admit he was raw as shit. 

Which is exactly the reaction Batfleck got.

That's what people don't understand, SUPERMAN can afford to have that no kill code, he has damn near control of every situation. 

• He can realistically adhere to it. And he represents something less psychological & more akin to ideals of humanity itself, the condition of mankind. Which is a leagues more impactful message than a rich boy not killing because it's about him than something bigger than himself.
• Superman shouldn't be killing anyone but even Superman has to do what needs to be done, and he does so (just ask Doomsday). Superman WILL end you if there's not other way.

The reason Man of Steel's climax  didn't work is because there were other ways. What happened there was a contrivance.

But he realistically can choose not to, not only because his concept fits it better, but he's literally the kind big brother of all mankind. Batman doesn't have that reputation, by choice.

Superman is supposed to possess a hopefully hopeless love/understanding/respect for human potential, he doesn't kill because he gives life another chance. Not because if he does it he'll just take the White House next. (That's why Injustice is a stupid take) 

Superman's no kill code works better than Batman's because it's about us (Humanity), it's not about Superman being a tipsy psycho. And he doesn't make it about himself, he makes it about us and what we're capable of- THAT'S WHY IT WORKS as a moral.

The same 'criminals escape & hurt more people' fallacy still exists, yes; however the caveat is he makes his code about us. We, you, me, the colony. All of us. We're all involved in his no kill code's mechanisms, because he believes in us, humanity.

That is the consequence of being such a significant ideal to the world, he has to be the example, and he takes that position seriously & respects it, and doesn't take it for granted. (He has something Kara Snore-El lacks here: a stake. Relevance. Necessity.)

For Batman, for his kill code? In most takes, it's not the same.

If anything, Batman abandoning his code overtime, for realistic/practical reasons & Superman being the contrast would make their dichotomy work even better. (Because Wonder Woman has ZERO qualms with executions but no one in the league looks down on her over it)

Which is why despite all it's problems, that was the point of BvS' Batman's brutality, Superman's sacrifice bringing Batman back to humanity after thinking Superman was some morally androgynous demon. As sloppy as it was executed, I like that theme.

It actually makes more sense that Bruce doesn't want to kill people or use guns because he doesn't wanna be like Joe chill and Batman is the one that realizes that that's an idealistic fantasy of a child (not an insult, literally it's Bruce regressed as an 8 year old vowing not to be like the person who created him, when it's not even that deep) because no matter what he does (with the exception of maybe Batman who Laughs), in standard canon, he'll never be what that man was that night if he continues to fight evil. That's the point.

And this idea that if he kills once (Under The Red Hood) he'll never "come back" is stupid, that makes Batman look idiotic. That shit never stopped Rorschach.

 

So he's willing to sacrifice hundreds more by not killing Joker, because he'll be worse somehow for putting down Joker & thus Batman will just keep killing because apparently he'll get addicted to it or something. (Though Batfleck & OT Batman is an example that he won't lmfao)

As opposed to being addicted to breaking joints & reducing criminals to sipping from straws for the rest of their lives or just repeating the same mistakes. 

Because notice how 20 years go by, and crime rates doesn't change. People got used to Unc crashing their party, and bro can't be everywhere at once, he's just a guy.

See, Raimi Spider-man lowers crime rate because he's a positive presence, Batman is the opposite, so he has this code- not because he's like Daredevil & wants to give life a chance (though there's also issues with that that Frank rightfully points out) but instead he selfishly allows evils to escape prison & repeat the same thing/ same cycle because he's too weak to both do what needs to be done and too incompetent to not let it go to his head if he does.

This is the problem with the kill code, it adds depth but poor characterization. You can not have your cake and eat it too. And the ONLY reason we accepted it in Under The Red Hood is because Batman physically beat Jason because of our evolution biases, we conflated his physical might with moral argument also being right. 

Jason was/ still is right.

And a lot of casuals that grew up on DCAU & Post- Crisis know no other way, that's the only Batman they know. And they don't use their brains that this guy is literally dressed as Satan's duke of destruction, scaring the shit out of people is fine, handicaps, reversed joints, & casts are fine. But killing the worst of the worst criminals is a no no.

I'm genuinely curious as to how Batman would handle Art The Clown, or The Creeper- if he wouldn't straight up get himself killed. 

If Batman kills Joker, he's not justifying becoming Joe Chill because Chill didn't fight for anyone, didn't protect anyone, he preyed on innocent people with ZERO bodycount and killed them anyway. 

The kill code means something as far as discipline goes, & Chill being the basis makes sense, logically. But again, that depth holds the most legitimacy in his youth while Bruce is still vibrant.

But as he gets older, Batman holds the light more often & crime gets used to Batman being a glorified tough-love nanny in cosplay, he'll notice it doesn't work and then evolves to match the energy or just keep expecting different outcomes by doing the same thing.

Or? Use Bruce Wayne to change the economic inequities that push the conditions to create more criminals. Or....perhaps Batman likes Gotham rotten so he can plenty of prey to toy with (But imma quit while I'm ahead, cause that's going to go to a really dark place lol)

Either way, the argument with Batman never using guns cause holds up regardless. 

But the kill code doesn't. If Zarathos, an immortal, insane spirit of vengeance who's so old he can afford to just wipe out humanity because he'd reason that evil only exists as long as intelligent humanity does; so if Zarathos has the conviction to kill evil without blowing up a school bus for kicks, Batman can put down the extremes just the same.

 (one last time on the dark note) Batman doesn't kill, because if he did, he wouldn't have a purpose if his regulars were dead & gone. Let's just call it what it is, Batman knows it's less about them & more about him, all about him, but not for the reasons even he realizes. (Alright i'm done)

That's also why it doesn't work, it's about him, not 100% but solely.

So when we have normies in reaction videos clenching their buttcheeks outraged over Batman killing, making exceptions throughout the fight trying rationalize in their own heads who he killed & didn't kill or if that grenade death as 'oh well, i guess he didn't kill them if their own weapon killed them' jfc dude. 

Bro's braincells are in overdrive trying to adhere to his preconceptions, so much so he's driving that poor woman next to him crazy.

• So so desperate to keep that norm in tact (& I'm big on norms and standards, no guideline, no standard breeds confusion. If nature abandoned norms, the microorganisms in your bodies would eat you alive vs keeping your bacteria & immune systems in check) but norms that don't work? Are subject to evolution. 

• Batman (a mortal who walks amongst gods & genuinely loves Gotham) & Chill (a nobody who stood for nothing). They're not the same.

Batman is not so fragile that he'll turn into Pennywise after he gets first blood, I'm not even the biggest Batman fan (not anymore) but simultaneously: I get it, and have more respect for the man's fortitude than that. 

First and foremost, Batman protects Gotham, if you wanted to argue that criminals are Gotham too & that's how Batman sees them? Criminals being potential productive members of Gotham; That sounds like Superman than Batman. But that's a way stronger case than the Joe Chill stance.

Yet even then-- if it's about Batman not going crazy than it is about the criminals, then that defeats that better stance. 

If it was about him trying to save the criminals, ok, cool. But it's about him.

Batman's motivations have more depth psychologically, but Superman's is less selfish, more meaningful because it's about everyone.

And to what end will criminals being a part of Gotham take priority over the innocents of Gotham long term, if the scum insist on destroying what they're a part of in the first place? 

"You want to rule them by fear, but what do you do with the one's who aren't afraid?" - Red Hood

 So even then, there's holes in the logic. This is the gray/ the moral argument significance that Post-Crisis made iconic to DC (the same gray that drove mah boi SB-Prime crazy lmfao). It's never just that simple.

That's why the Daredevil vs Punisher debate is so damn relevant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhakGLCMGWs

JLongbone on fetishes - no-kinkshame chronicles

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsrzU0fqOp8

22:25 exactly the issue with fetishists

Most just end up emotional dumping their imprint misfires on the rest of the planet through the internet as if they're in the privacy of a room.

Then get wound tight when someone finally says the quiet part out loud; after making their issues everyones business in the first place: The premise of the linked timestamp.

100% confident as long as everyone's in on it.

However with that illusion of confidence, peacocking such mess in the public scheme, waaay beyond boorus and deviantart but on YOUTUBE & others , ten toes down, for years on end.

Then nothing but crickets or straight up panic when an NPC pulls up and says the quit part out loud, even if just ironically in passing.

And it's even WORSE if that person has receipts on the psychological/social lore behind what the fuck it is these people are even playing with for decades on end.

Lore that even psychologists aren't putting on the table, which is partly to blame for a good amount of this "explore it" enablement culture, cowardice.

Note: The OLNY natural phase of a fetishes origin is the fact that a child doesn't control when or what they're imprinting on. So errors can & do happen. Hence fetish.

• Nothing is wrong with one, us, you, or people cause imprinting errors happen, how far one takes it is when the accountability comes knocking.

Meaning a hyper-fixation/fetish on most paraphilia is essentially a brain glitch. A misfire, because your untrained, malleable child mind is conflating one thing with something else that it's not, because of a mistranslation stemmed from an emotion evoked by said thing in an underdeveloped brain.

• Which is explains why a lot of fetishists act like actual children in regression context or the fantasy is straight up infantile.

• Ppl get too caught up in the communities/cults, the illusion of security of owning it or this "embrace" shit when in reality it's a game of: "Tell me you're an addict without admitting you have issues you let fester like an infected wound"

So no, it's not permanent (dun dun duuun), nor a gift from the universe, nor an identity trait, it's not destiny, it's an adoption, DLC. Cope. A brain glitch.

Because "Neuroplasticity" exists

Look up "Neuro-plasticity", that's where this illusion of fetishes being identity or perma, or destiny or whatever they tell themselves to cope- comes from.

Despite this very modern sentiment of being protective of what is essentially a Windows Update Error in the human mind:

Fetishes are not sacred concepts no one can't ever challenge, it's not an orientation, it's an imprint misfire.

And if this is news to any of us because the "experts" want to destigmatize everything to save their own optics, or omit morality from study to avoid over-pathologizing (which in concept is an understandable reason) but miss the fact that to avoid over-pathologizing because they feel judgement of fetishes is either wrong or likely gratuitous-

that in itself IS A MORAL JUDGEMENT in the first place.

So morality in psychology is a problem, unless I decide to use my morality to say using morality avoid calling a spade a spade cause it will hurt people's feelings cause everyone's got a fetish, which is a lie, more people have kinks than fetishes.

A fetish is a statement of sexual ineptitude, that you NEED specifically some paraphilia in order to get going, which is a sexual handicap. Not a evolutionary advantage.

So this "hot harming anyone" clause deriving from destigmatization deriving from the MORAL decision to omit morality from psychological overview is a meaningless excuse #1, and at worst: hypocrisy and negligence, stemming from good intentions (where a lot of bad decisions come from).

Thanks experts, what would we do without you..

'Cope for a cope' is this narrative:

• "It's part of who I am",

• "owning it"

• "embrace the monster",

All this bullshit a damn child wouldn't say while huffing laughing gas, is coming out the mouths of grownass adults, desperate to exist; even as a disgrace if they have to.

Having a fantasy on the brain is not the fault of imprinting, that's called "immersion learning" or the like, it's how you learn a language, Basically repeat conditioning.

• So If you've rammed/ violated your mind without a condom with the same crap ad infinitum, it's not your childhood that caused your mind to be stuck on it, it's addiction that did that.

JLongBone in the video got it 1000%, and I've been saying this already. Half the issue isn't that sexual variations exist, if people didn't feel the need to push it everywhere on almost every platform BECAUSE they're insecure and need the world to pay attention, clamor in reddit/threads/ communities pumping out content looking for cheerleaders & handjobbers to tell them they did a good job being a doof.

Constant hunt for justification.

Some people have enough sense to get their lives together & remold what they're attracted to as a kink.

Kinks (depending on what it is) can add flavor to sexuality vs Fetishism is where instincts & braincells go to rot to instead buff regression & devolution stats.

Too much regression.

About Criticism (compilation) *just slap a 3 on mal and move on

41:42 "slap a 3 on Mal and move on"

imagine they made a post recommending a show to people, & then you come along- not to disagree with arguments while acknowledging what little the show also does right:

but instead telling them not to explain why their favorite show works, solely because you/we/ i decided for everyone that we don't see the "need" to have a conversation about it, regardless of good or bad.

Just slap a 10 on Mal and move on.

A flaw as it is, I get caught up in my own guff sometimes when I go on tangents but the ego on that one? In that statement? Can't compete, I'm beat. Holy moly.

All the essays I could cook up to make a damn book can't match the power levels of pretentious in that very short comment.

"I don't see the appeal of discussing-" [translation]: you stop talking about it because I'm over it. Yeah? O rly? Lmfao.

now would they say that if the opinion was exactly what they wanted to hear? Course not.

Drinker's Chasers - Is The James Gunn Party Ending?

 hate supergirl as a concept with the burning passion of 1 million suns times decillion, but i'm 100% game for that film to possibly be better than Superman 25, deadass. It has the advantage of being second, to learn from the previous mistakes-

 it's possible.

EBT Freeloaders CRASH OUT After Getting Cut Off (minor excerpt of Michael Knowles on Birthrates)

5:45 nah, ppl have kids regardless of funds all the time. ppl don't breed, because people don't value families because society has destroyed the value of the family for more than 20 years.

can't just undo the damage of decades of propaganda in a few years because NOW you can't ignore the birthrates anymore. Thats not how it works & thats the only reason why people talk about it. You can’t pretend it doesn’t exist anymore.

• The money is a factor for the smarter people who think first but the fact is: If the sexes don't want to deal with each other in the first place, yer not getting kids.
• If the people together have more desires than values or principles, more wants than reciprocation? You're not getting families even if you get kids.

If 40-60% of people are opting out of dating, mankeeping, womankeeping, all these terms just to illustrate “frustrated”, if more men are retreating to fetishes, ai, addiction, online para-social crap like OF/Vtubers/Tier 3s, peter pan syndrome- anything and everything to replace women and men. And there's more and more puff piece articles ENCOURAGING IT? Enabling exploring this crap. 

You're not getting kids.

If the women are raised in feminized society that doesn't raise any men for them to choose from, and all they have are wannabe footslaves, boytoys, shrunken tinies, bottoms, and docile manchildren- a generation of weakness, self-loathing and incompetence.

you might get kids, MAYBE, but you're not getting stable families, let alone 40 yr + long marriages. It won't happen.

That time is long done, at best the flukes are the ones that do succeed. Success isn't the norm for westerners, because the norm is dysfunction, dysfunction is progressive.  Destigmatization is inclusive & tolerant.  Decline is the reward.

Japan has the exact same problem.

Why are any of us confused as to why birthrates decline in civilization that values dysfunction, hedonism, neutering masculinity because femininity is easier to control & manipulate, nerfing femininity by signaling to women that they have to emulate the masculine to compete with men instead of just changing how the competition works, & enabling disconnect more than pushing the family.

And you're actually surprised that your country got to this point? The real surprise is you didn't get here sooner.

This birthrate situation is not a complicated algorithm, and im so sick of the same 2-3 talking points being brought up as if that's all there is to it.

South Korea 2025 is somewhat fixing this issue by just changing the attitude of the overall culture AND providing monetary support, but it's more about the attitude of society.

And not just changing an outlook because it's a gut reaction to the numbers falling but a genuine admission that independence & Marxist abolition of the family for that ignorant sense of progression because your country THOUGHT you could afford to take traditional values for granted: was both a mistake and a lie.

Consequences.