• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:592] How is being kind and inclusive a bad thing? Aren't those things objectively good?

Is it fundamental good to be open-minded, inclusive, and kind to others?

  • No, we should only be good to people who think and act like me.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    50
None of these things have anything to do with box office. You just have super racist views and think it's normal to just tell other adults these things.
Box office depends on word of mouth, and after some of the cinematic eyesores that have appeared, audiences don't need a lot of excuses to pass on something dubious. If I did have "super racist views," which claim is typical Mad Lib BS, I'm just one moviegoer, so I don't control the forces that make a woke movie flop. I even supplied an example of a rare success of a woke success-- which none of the Mad Lib BS artists did-- i.e, Harley Quinn, which prospers by appealing to upscale Libs willing to pay for HBO Max. Brother Fease's OP claims that all the anti-woke crowds are staying away from theaters because Fox News told them to, and that dopey paradigm makes Mad Libs squeal with joy for their vindication. Well, why didn't LEGACY flop in the American box office if it's true that all the people Cons listen to faithfully were against it? That's supposedly the malign force that caused the failure of all these great woke masterpieces like THE MARVELS and CAPTAIN AMERICA BRAVE NEW WORLD. I notice BF doesn't even quote any of these sources that supposedly control the Con audiences. I'm not super racist; you Mad Libs have just been virtue signaling so long, you've lost any ability to think logically.
 
Just magnificent. 🤣🤣🤣 Thank you for all of that.


Asking but what about the Natives, to Gunn simply remarking that we're a nation of immigrants is perfect. You are the consummate caricature of the Mad Libs you complain about. Also he didn't play down anything. The movie wasnt about colonialism or immigration. It was about how kindness and decency is punk rock. It used the back drop of colonialism and domestic immigration policy (they decide he's an alien and thus without any legal rights and contract out his detention to a foreign prison to a private contractor) to inspire others (the justice gang and the audience) to see everyone, despite what part of what border they reside on, to be deserving of safety and decency. In the end his appeal to Lex is about his humanity and fallibility but his drive to do better. Way to miss a simple message with all your woke Mad Lib fantasies. 😂
Nothing you wrote disproves the post to which you simplistically responded. In that post I said that Gunn had played down Mad Lib fantasies, and all you did was to prove my point. There's no "backdrop of colonialism" at all, such as appears in various contemporaneous Lib films; that would have undermined Gunn's flattering message about American Kindness. The fact that Gunn invokes legalities about whether an alien has rights at all is significant, though, because he wants to imply xenophobia without actually saying it. Instead, in the opening conference between Luthor and the American politicos, the latter are largely concerned that this super-powerful alien is interfering with their geopolitical aims, but they don't want to move against Superman because he's super-popular. Once Luthor conveniently finds something that supposedly makes all the good will the hero accrued just disappear, THEN the politicians give Luthor total control. Afterward, all we hear about the officials is Luthor complaining that he can't kill his captive right away because the officials want to question him, and he Luthor has to figure out some way to placate his theoretical superiors.

There's no indication of political pushback against the politicians in control. Where's the ACLU trying to defend Superman's constitutional right to a hearing? Where's the Liberal Media fussing about Superman's rights the way they have done with Abrego Garcia? All we get is the Daily Planet, but they're not investigating Superman's captivity because of his legal rights (though I could have missed some piddly little aside, given that I've only seen the flick once). Lane and Olsen have personal connections to the hero, so they believe in his goodness, and by implication the others share that view, and the view that Luthor is a dangerous scumbag.

Gunn even loads the responses of the other superheroes to Superman's captivity. Initially they don't want to move against the supposedly monolithic government, and as I recall Mister Terrific only helps Lois not because of Superman's personality or his rights, but because Terrific is leery of the dangers inherent in Luthor's pocket universe. So, if Superman had just been held in some real-world Gulag, I guess none of them would have done anything. What happens to make them decide to intervene against the Boravian aggression at the conclusion? That would be defying the government too. Gunn might have said something about how Luthor's messing with black holes placed the American politicos in a dubious position, and that the Justice Gang could do what they pleased because they the heroes had the politicians by the small and hairies. I'm not sure I'd credit Gunn with thinking things out that thoroughly, given all the plot holes he let stand. The original cut before pruning was four hours long, but I haven't seen any intimations about cut scenes like the hypothetical one I described.
 
Last edited:
You're quite the fan of hasty overgeneralizations, aren't you?

My recommendation: Look up "virtue-signaling" in the dictionary and find any part of the definition that is in the same galaxy as your dumb conclusion.
Well, the OP was an open invitation to overgeneralizations, so...
 
Nothing you wrote disproves the post to which you simplistically responded.
That's because it doesnt take a dissertation to laugh at your opinions of the movie. You asked, what about the Natives, to Gunn saying that we're a nation of immigrants. Nothing else has to be done to make that hilarious. 🤣🤣🤣
In that post I said that Gunn had played down Mad Lib fantasies, and all you did was to prove my point.
The movie isn't about your Mad Lib fantasies. 😂😂😂 It's about decency and kindness being punk rock.
There's no "backdrop of colonialism" at all, such as appears in various contemporaneous Lib films; that would have undermined Gunn's flattering message about American Kindness.
It's not about American kindness, it's human kidness. You're so stuck in your Mad Lib fantasies that that is all you can ever see.... 😂
The fact that Gunn invokes legalities about whether an alien has rights at all is significant, though, because he wants to imply xenophobia without actually saying it.
Does he have to? You're not supposed to like when the government renditions an alien to a foreign detention facility via their private military contractor. That's played as a negative thing.... 😂 .... but that was too subtle even for you huh?
Instead, in the opening conference between Luthor and the American politicos, the latter are largely concerned that this super-powerful alien is interfering with their geopolitical aims, but they don't want to move against Superman because he's super-popular. Once Luthor conveniently finds something that supposedly makes all the good will the hero accrued just disappear, THEN the politicians give Luthor total control. Afterward, all we hear about the officials is Luthor complaining that he can't kill his captive right away because the officials want to question him, and he Luthor has to figure out some way to placate his theoretical superiors.

There's no indication of political pushback against the politicians in control. Where's the ACLU trying to defend Superman's constitutional right to a hearing?
🤣🤣🤣

Where's the ACLU is almost as funny as what about the Natives? You are lost to your own Mad Lib sauce. 😂
Where's the Liberal Media fussing about Superman's rights the way they have done with Abrego Garcia? All we get is the Daily Planet, but they're not investigating Superman's captivity because of his legal rights (though I could have missed some piddly little aside, given that I've only seen the flick once). Lane and Olsen have personal connections to the hero, so they believe in his goodness, and by implication the others share that view, and the view that Luthor is a dangerous scumbag.

Gunn even loads the responses of the other superheroes to Superman's captivity. Initially they don't want to move against the supposedly monolithic government, and as I recall Mister Terrific only helps Lois not because of Superman's personality or his rights, but because Terrific is leery of the dangers inherent in Luthor's pocket universe. So, if Superman had just been held in some real-world Gulag, I guess none of them would have done anything. What happens to make them decide to intervene against the Boravian aggression at the conclusion? That would be defying the government too. Gunn might have said something about how Luthor's messing with black holes placed the American politicos in a dubious position, and that the Justice Gang could do what they pleased because they the heroes had the politicians by the small and hairies. I'm not sure I'd credit Gunn with thinking things out that thoroughly, given all the plot holes he let stand. The original cut before pruning was four hours long, but I haven't seen any intimations about cut scenes like the hypothetical one I described.
Sorry, I'm having trouble concentrating after that Where's the ACLU thing.... 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

**** me you're hilarious. Unintentionally of course but who cares. Funny is funny. 😂
 
Box office depends on word of mouth
No it doesn’t. Word of mouth doesn’t open movies. Marketing does. You don’t know anything about this subject except non white faces seem to offend you in a movie for some reason.
 
LOL!
I had already told you in the post you replied to !
Go look it up !

I had HR Training and they were FORCING People to play pretend with the delusional people who want to be what they are not !
Yes, at a place of business you must act like a pro and not let emotions get int he way of running that business. They have every right to do that. You don’t have to work there, that isn’t government mandated anything. Sounds to me like a bad employee got whiny about something.
 
So when Captain America fought Commies (however briefly) in the fifties and sixties, that would be Leftie virtue signaling too?

Aside from the fact that Captain America served as a propaganda character, Soviet Communism was a bastardization of Socialism and ultimately right-wing anyway.
 
Nothing you wrote disproves the post to which you simplistically responded. In that post I said that Gunn had played down Mad Lib fantasies, and all you did was to prove my point. There's no "backdrop of colonialism" at all, such as appears in various contemporaneous Lib films; that would have undermined Gunn's flattering message about American Kindness. The fact that Gunn invokes legalities about whether an alien has rights at all is significant, though, because he wants to imply xenophobia without actually saying it. Instead, in the opening conference between Luthor and the American politicos, the latter are largely concerned that this super-powerful alien is interfering with their geopolitical aims, but they don't want to move against Superman because he's super-popular. Once Luthor conveniently finds something that supposedly makes all the good will the hero accrued just disappear, THEN the politicians give Luthor total control. Afterward, all we hear about the officials is Luthor complaining that he can't kill his captive right away because the officials want to question him, and he Luthor has to figure out some way to placate his theoretical superiors.

There's no indication of political pushback against the politicians in control. Where's the ACLU trying to defend Superman's constitutional right to a hearing? Where's the Liberal Media fussing about Superman's rights the way they have done with Abrego Garcia? All we get is the Daily Planet, but they're not investigating Superman's captivity because of his legal rights (though I could have missed some piddly little aside, given that I've only seen the flick once). Lane and Olsen have personal connections to the hero, so they believe in his goodness, and by implication the others share that view, and the view that Luthor is a dangerous scumbag.

Gunn even loads the responses of the other superheroes to Superman's captivity. Initially they don't want to move against the supposedly monolithic government, and as I recall Mister Terrific only helps Lois not because of Superman's personality or his rights, but because Terrific is leery of the dangers inherent in Luthor's pocket universe. So, if Superman had just been held in some real-world Gulag, I guess none of them would have done anything. What happens to make them decide to intervene against the Boravian aggression at the conclusion? That would be defying the government too. Gunn might have said something about how Luthor's messing with black holes placed the American politicos in a dubious position, and that the Justice Gang could do what they pleased because they the heroes had the politicians by the small and hairies. I'm not sure I'd credit Gunn with thinking things out that thoroughly, given all the plot holes he let stand. The original cut before pruning was four hours long, but I haven't seen any intimations about cut scenes like the hypothetical one I described.
Excellent analysis on the political undertones suggested in the movie.
Things were moving so fast in the story, it is hard for viewers to simultaneously enjoy the movie as well trying to connect the scenes you mentioned to what is really happening politically in this country.
 
Nothing you wrote disproves the post to which you simplistically responded. In that post I said that Gunn had played down Mad Lib fantasies, and all you did was to prove my point. There's no "backdrop of colonialism" at all, such as appears in various contemporaneous Lib films; that would have undermined Gunn's flattering message about American Kindness. The fact that Gunn invokes legalities about whether an alien has rights at all is significant, though, because he wants to imply xenophobia without actually saying it. Instead, in the opening conference between Luthor and the American politicos, the latter are largely concerned that this super-powerful alien is interfering with their geopolitical aims, but they don't want to move against Superman because he's super-popular. Once Luthor conveniently finds something that supposedly makes all the good will the hero accrued just disappear, THEN the politicians give Luthor total control. Afterward, all we hear about the officials is Luthor complaining that he can't kill his captive right away because the officials want to question him, and he Luthor has to figure out some way to placate his theoretical superiors.

There's no indication of political pushback against the politicians in control. Where's the ACLU trying to defend Superman's constitutional right to a hearing? Where's the Liberal Media fussing about Superman's rights the way they have done with Abrego Garcia? All we get is the Daily Planet, but they're not investigating Superman's captivity because of his legal rights (though I could have missed some piddly little aside, given that I've only seen the flick once). Lane and Olsen have personal connections to the hero, so they believe in his goodness, and by implication the others share that view, and the view that Luthor is a dangerous scumbag.

Gunn even loads the responses of the other superheroes to Superman's captivity. Initially they don't want to move against the supposedly monolithic government, and as I recall Mister Terrific only helps Lois not because of Superman's personality or his rights, but because Terrific is leery of the dangers inherent in Luthor's pocket universe. So, if Superman had just been held in some real-world Gulag, I guess none of them would have done anything. What happens to make them decide to intervene against the Boravian aggression at the conclusion? That would be defying the government too. Gunn might have said something about how Luthor's messing with black holes placed the American politicos in a dubious position, and that the Justice Gang could do what they pleased because they the heroes had the politicians by the small and hairies. I'm not sure I'd credit Gunn with thinking things out that thoroughly, given all the plot holes he let stand. The original cut before pruning was four hours long, but I haven't seen any intimations about cut scenes like the hypothetical one I described.
So you enjoyed the woke Superman movie along with the rest of the country. Nice.
 
So you enjoyed the woke Superman movie along with the rest of the country. Nice.
Taking your post seriously, I would answer yes.
A previous analysis by Ouroboros did a nice job of pointed out a number of scenes that have parallels with situations in our own society.
Very clever on the part of the director/writer but, at the same time, could detract from the enjoyment of the movie.
But one cannot enjoy the silliness of Superman handcuffed and being taken to a pocket universe holding cell without thinking he could easily break his restraints and lay waste to everything in that vast detention center.
Oh, the power of one being able to suspend one's disbelief and enjoy the story being told by the director.
No more possible spoilers for those wanting to simply indulge in a silly story of the Man of Steel and his annoying dog.
 
Excellent analysis on the political undertones suggested in the movie.
Things were moving so fast in the story, it is hard for viewers to simultaneously enjoy the movie as well trying to connect the scenes you mentioned to what is really happening politically in this country.
It has a 95% audience rating for enjoyment..... 🤣🤣🤣

The only people who didn't enjoy the movie are soys who were waiting on the ACLU to show up. 😂
 
It has a 95% audience rating for enjoyment..... 🤣🤣🤣

The only people who didn't enjoy the movie are soys who were waiting on the ACLU to show up. 😂
Why wasn't the ACLU there to defend Superman wrongly detained in a cage?
Obviously he needed to be defended when he didn't do anything wrong.
 
Taking your post seriously, I would answer yes.
A previous analysis by Ouroboros did a nice job of pointed out a number of scenes that have parallels with situations in our own society.
Very clever on the part of the director/writer but, at the same time, could detract from the enjoyment of the movie.
His analysis was that the message was ambiguous, not that it was so overt it distracted from the movie. He fantasized it being clearer it's message by having the ACLU show up. 😂😂😂
But one cannot enjoy the silliness of Superman handcuffed and being taken to a pocket universe holding cell without thinking he could easily break his restraints and lay waste to everything in that vast detention center.
Oh, the power of one being able to suspend one's disbelief and enjoy the story being told by the director.
No more possible spoilers for those wanting to simply indulge in a silly story of the Man of Steel and his annoying dog.
Again.... 95% audience rating. Plenty of people enjoyed it. 😂
 
Why wasn't the ACLU there to defend Superman wrongly detained in a cage?
Obviously he needed to be defended when he didn't do anything wrong.
That's a question for you two to answer in your fan fiction version of Superman. Can't wait to hear what that sounds like! 😂😂😂
 
That's a question for you two to answer in your fan fiction version of Superman. Can't wait to hear what that sounds like! 😂😂😂
Just like the anti-Trumpers who spout nonsense, I can speculate on that cinematic fictional scene as well as anyone. But is it worth it?
 
Just like the anti-Trumpers who spout nonsense, I can speculate on that cinematic fictional scene as well as anyone. But is it worth it?
Well that's the question innit? Who wants the white wing version of Superman? 🤷🏾‍♂️. Anyone? Not even you apparently.... 🤣🤣🤣
 
And Lefties would distort the story of the Good Samaritan to mean welcoming MS-13 gang members into one's country in the name of kindness. So what?

MS-13 was created in American prisons. The Good Samaritan lesson would be welcoming to the stranger by default, not sending them to Alligator Gitmo.

Right, the same year Male Captain Marvel died, so the company's primary consideration was making a new hero to keep the trademark. The point of my mentioning Storm of the X-Men was to show that in an era when the readership included both Libs and Cons there was no great pushback against creating NEW characters of color.

Kamala Kahn. Why did she receive backlash?

But in the 1980s Con readers weren't being constantly inundated with the sort of reverse racism faced by modern-day Cons (whom I won't call "Maga" because it's silly to imagine that pushback against Liberal presumptions started with Donald Trump's first campaign).

What's reverse racism in comics? Can you give me an example?

Because I didn't say anything about Obama, nor do I recall anyone else on the thread mentioning him. Even if the intent was to make a joke, a joke that forced comes down a strawman.

It wasn't a joke at all. What was the factor which turned comic readers into hateful 40-something bigots?

Eonberger supplied this thread with a list of flop movies with Lib political content.

Could you link to it? I couldn't find it.

If you're saying the political content wasn't even partly responsible for the failures, then choose even one and prove that the box office failure stemmed from "capitalism."

The failure of capitalism in movies is the emphasis on acquiring IPs to leverage nostalgia, rather than relying on the quality of the story or the talent of the actor. New actors can no longer draw in a big audience, nor do studios want them to, because that would give the actors leverage in how they are compensated. It's easier to acquire IPs and throw rando actors into the project. That way the studio has maximum leverage and profit. Capitalism has killed the industry.

I've stated that Centrist, middle-of-the-road entertainment like SUPERMAN LEGACY is usually the best formula, though I made allowances for franchise films that were indubitably woke but had a "rep" from an earlier medium, like WICKED. I don't know where you got the propositon you made, but I know it's made of straw.

Yeah, I love it when movies both sides the legit bad guy to appease fascists. If Captain America punched the fascists today, they'd be called ANTIFA.
 
That's because it doesnt take a dissertation to laugh at your opinions of the movie. You asked, what about the Natives, to Gunn saying that we're a nation of immigrants. Nothing else has to be done to make that hilarious. 🤣🤣🤣
Don't try to kid anyone: you confine yourselves to brief and worthless barbs because you couldn't write a real analysis if you tried. You yuck it up because you've got nothing else to explain why Gunn is going on and on about American kindness while YOU claim there's some anti-colonial narrative deep down in the LEGACY narrative.
The movie isn't about your Mad Lib fantasies. 😂😂😂 It's about decency and kindness being punk rock.

Say it louder, I didn't hear all the Mad Libs cheering the first time. Probably they were too busy with their own fantasies.
It's not about American kindness, it's human kidness. You're so stuck in your Mad Lib fantasies that that is all you can ever see.... 😂
Show, in the quote provided, where Gunn talks about kindness in other countries.
Does he have to? You're not supposed to like when the government renditions an alien to a foreign detention facility via their private military contractor. That's played as a negative thing.... 😂 .... but that was too subtle even for you huh?

The motives IN THE MOVIE for the rendition remain irrelevant to the immigrant debate that Gunn worked into his publicity for the movie, but not into the movie he made. The government guys don't want a powerful X-factor messing in their business, and Luthor's obsessed with Superman's superiority, not with his being an alien who's going to live in his neighborhood. I'm sure your idea of "subtlety" is your unflinching obedience to the ever-divisive Mad Lib narrative, so that you salivate even when you just hear the sound of a clicking trigger.
🤣🤣🤣

Where's the ACLU is almost as funny as what about the Natives? You are lost to your own Mad Lib sauce. 😂

Sorry, I'm having trouble concentrating after that Where's the ACLU thing.... 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

**** me you're hilarious. Unintentionally of course but who cares. Funny is funny. 😂
Calling me a Mad Lib-- that is, a Progressive-- is another example of your Humpty Dumpty-like desire to make words you don't understand mean what you say. There aren't enough laugh emojis in the world able to capture the humor in your inept posts.
 
No idea what I was dodging?
Nota Bene saying that his being a conservative didn't automatically mean he was anti-POC, which is a Lib fantasy promoted by the OP, and to which you have also subscribed. If you were fully committed to your narrative you'd just resort to calling all Cons racist no matter what they say.
 
No it doesn’t. Word of mouth doesn’t open movies. Marketing does. You don’t know anything about this subject except non white faces seem to offend you in a movie for some reason.
Wow, I thought you Mad Libs were all about freedom of choice, but now here you are claiming that the audience isn't truly free to make choices, that they respond to clever marketing like rats following a cheese trail. I always knew that was what Mad Libs were really about, nice to see you admit it.
 
Aside from the fact that Captain America served as a propaganda character, Soviet Communism was a bastardization of Socialism and ultimately right-wing anyway.
But was the Captain a propaganda character when he was punching Nazis? No, every Fake Liberal who whips out a picture of the Captain slugging Hitler is totally into that meme because they like to think they're punching Conservatives. What a pathetic dodge.
 
Back
Top Bottom