with all the hype that’s going on around borderland’s i’d like to point out that the handsome collection is 94% off on steam right now!less than 15 dollars for borderlands 2 and borderlands the pre-sequel and all of their dlc!
thinking about how pewdeepie was considered lame and cringy until he became a nazi icon and now people pretend his content is good
I understand that the way I’ve worded this post has upset some people and I’d like to address that
I’m sorry, that you were offended by my post. I’m very sorry that you were upset by my post about peediepie being unfunny and popular with nazis. It’s really a shame that you were #triggered by my words.
But it’s just a joke so I don’t really see the issue. It’s just satire, it doesn’t actually hurt pewds to cal him a nazi! It’s a joke! Can’t you take a joke? Sorry that calling a guy who thinks antisemitism is funny a nazi is too politically incorrect for you! Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and mine is that pewdiepie sucks shit. Please respect that
barnyard the original party animals is the uncontested lord of bad implications in childrens movies
ok so like “the secret life of x” movies tend to not strongly explore the actual reasons why, exactly, their life has to be secret… they don’t really focus on it within the narrative. They do usually have some small justification for why animals or video games or toys or whatever have never just revealed themselves:
There’s no stated reason. They just pretend to not be alive. We usually can suspend our suspension of disbelief here because when it’s something like a video game or an emoji because any odd occurrences is perceived as a glitch or something similar but the actual reason why they aren’t too hung up on this kinda shitty lot in life isn’t said
They get something out of their current relationship with humans (like in toy story)
They have some specific reason to hide that they’re alive, like they die if they’re seen (like in the christmas toy)
They perceive themselves as sentient, talking creatures, but humans can’t understand them. They just see a squeaking mouse or an inanimate hot dog or whatever.
and the last one is what most animal movies do, and it’s like, not devoid of weird implications but you can see where it mostly works.
but barnyard is the outlier here: it goes with tier one: the animals can talk and walk on two legs but just pretend that they can’t for unstated reasons.
in the history of the barnyard world non human animals, at some point, decided to just pretend to be unable to speak. a “cow” or a “coyote” or a “hen” do not exist as we know it in the barnyard universe. the baa of the sheep is false; the ewe doesn’t understand it either. they only made up that noise to hide the fact that they speak human languages. a dog barking and running on all fours is a facade. animals naturally walk on their hind legs and made up whole postures just to appear non sentient.
and for what? what do they gain from this? they have no rights and no voice by their own choice. at one point a donkey claims the farmer is a good person because he’s vegan and a pig mentions bacon - this is not a fantasy universe devoid of death and misery and meat. do animals, in hushed whispers, remind their children not to sob in their real voice as they’re taken away? do the dogs not beg for kindness when they’re tied up and hit? do cows and chickens not cry for their life in the slaughterhouses? does a rat not scream a human scream when the trap misses their neck and only breaks their spine? Why? what is the point? They loose so much and have everything to gain.
anyways does everyone remember this really awful cat. it only appears in one scene but i can just sense the porn of it that would pop up if i googled it’s name
This post is like being tied to a chair as a a joker-style villain monologues and presses a gun closer and closer to my head as he reaches the climax of his rehearsed piece on the flaws of society and when he finally pulls the trigger it’s a little flag that says “bang!”
is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what
That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING
What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that?
It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot.
It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for.
I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..?
And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters.
Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing.
We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine.
What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do.
This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks:
Also:
He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence.
You can see her butthole for chrissakes
I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers.
Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity.
Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine. He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs.
Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock.
Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE.
This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you.
Men really need to learn the difference between male objectification and male power fantasy. Tony stark, bruce wayne and heman are all male power fantasy
