Twitter permanently suspends Milo Yiannopoulos over row with 'Ghostbusters' actress

timthumbni

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I didn't mind the movie so much, humour just seemed immature to me, far more than the original was. I think for that reason any young kids seeing it would most like enjoy it maybe a little more. The annoying stuff would just (hopefully at least) go over their heads, like them all shooting the ghost in the balls and making a joke about hitting him there. Then we have images like this from the premiere with Leslie suggestively standing on his balls and it's all a bit, well... fashionable pandering really.

https://twitter.com/shoe0nhead/status/754835055386562560

You do realise that this is a kids movie though. I really can't see why people get so annoyed over a fecking ghostbusters movie. The director and the actors got that much stick that you can hardly blame them for taking the Mickey a wee bit like in the photo.

When I went in I wasn't expecting Lawrence of Arabia style film making. But It was ok and quite entertaining. The kids loved it and that's really all that matters. I liked the cameos from the original cast. Where was Rick moranis though? Or did I miss him?

Elliott S

timthumbni wrote: »

Where was Rick moranis though? Or did I miss him?

He doesn't act anymore. Sadly, his wife died of breast cancer in her early 30s. He took time off acting to focus on raising his kids and he said that he found he didn't really miss acting so never went back to it.

Outlaw Pete

timthumbni wrote: »

You do realise that this is a kids movie though.

Well, tbf, it's not exclusively a kids film and nor was the original. It's pretty much a family comedy. I know many adults who liked both versions, I consider myself one of them in fact.

When I went in I wasn't expecting Lawrence of Arabia style film making. But It was ok and quite entertaining. The kids loved it and that's really all that matters.

Absolutely and for sure there is no way it deserves all the condemnation it has received and like I said in the film forum, there were at least a half dozen laugh out loud moments in it for me.

Arcade_Tryer

Bad move by twitter. Banning opinions and people like that from having a platform doesn't beat them. It just makes them think up more creative ways to get their views across, and garners them more support.

I long for the day when liberals realise that the way to beat the other side is to make better arguments. And to crush them with those arguments. Sadly all too often you see crap like this from Twitter and other popular message boards.

Mardy Bum

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

I long for the day when liberals realise that the way to beat the other side is to make better arguments. And to crush them with those arguments. .

You do know what trolling is? You do know he was a self proclaimed troll?

Arcade_Tryer

Mardy Bum wrote: »

You do know what trolling is? You do know he was a self proclaimed troll?

Trolling as a singular term is a false dichotomy, and one too easily thrown about by mostly liberals. Trolling can be and often is as worthy an endeavor as the vast amount of criticism and discourse seen online. Thoughtful and intelligent trolling can be as effective as good satire.

Mardy Bum

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Trolling as a singular term is a false dichotomy, and one too easily thrown about by mostly liberals. Trolling can be and often is as worthy an endeavor as the vast amount of criticism and discourse seen online. Thoughtful and intelligent trolling can be as effective as good satire.

Calling people fat and ugly is intelligent?
Trolling is the opposite of argument which you expounded upon earlier. Socrates was never one to troll.

InTheTrees

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Trolling can be and often is as worthy an endeavor as the vast amount of criticism and discourse seen online.

I thought you were longing for the day "when liberals realise that the way to beat the other side is to make better arguments"?

InTheTrees

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Bad move by twitter. Banning opinions and people like that from having a platform doesn't beat them.

Nobody's banning him from having a platform. He can go anywhere he likes and say whatever he likes.

He can go full westboro baptist church on her if he wants.

TSMGUY

I'm desperately trying to unsubscribe from this thread but I don't know how goddamnit. I think the discussion's been had.

Cliffs
Milo's a prick
Being a prick isn't a good reason to ban someone from Twitter.
The Ghostbusters reboot sucks unless you're a kid.
RIP Harold Ramis

THE END

But seriously, how the **** do I unsubscribe from this thread?

Arcade_Tryer

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Calling people fat and ugly is intelligent?
Trolling is the opposite of argument which you expounded upon earlier. Socrates was never one to troll.

No. Maybe. It's not necessarily unintelligent. The core problem is, if liberals can't either beat, or simply ignore, trolling, then they are essentially as pathetic as those who are trolling. Banning this guy from twitter is the totally wrong move. And I'm amazed, though not surprised, that people can't see that.

InTheTrees wrote: »

Nobody's banning him from having a platform. He can go anywhere he likes and say whatever he likes.

He can go full westboro baptist church on her if he wants.

That's quite disingenuous. He has a worldwide audience on twitter.

InTheTrees wrote: »

I thought you were longing for the day "when liberals realise that the way to beat the other side is to make better arguments"?

Also longing for it here too.

Outlaw Pete

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Bad move by twitter. Banning opinions and people like that from having a platform doesn't beat them. It just makes them think up more creative ways to get their views across, and garners them more support.

I long for the day when liberals realise that the way to beat the other side is to make better arguments. And to crush them with those arguments. Sadly all too often you see crap like this from Twitter and other popular message boards.

I agree, it's always the way: a character assassination followed by a cop out of how private companies can do what they like. Funny thing is many of those same voices didn't make that same argument when a Christian baker refused to bake cake for a gay couple. Seems private companies are only excused for doing what they like when it suits.

There always seems to be much hypocrisy from far left liberals. They are rarely consistent with their views and often blatantly contradict them. One of the most liberal voices online is The Young Turks who are all about doing the right thing, tolerating and respecting others views but yet what did one of their presenters (Jimmy Dore) do two nights back at the Republican National Convention, but spit in the face of Alex Jones. Very tolerant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=412aatJqbzo

Arcade_Tryer

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I agree, it's always the way: a character assassination followed by a cop out of how private companies can do what they like. Funny thing is many of those same voices didn't make that same argument when a Christian baker refused to bake cake for a gay couple. Seems private companies are only excused for doing what they like when it suits.

There always seems to be much hypocrisy from far left liberals. They are rarely consistent with their views and often blatantly contradict them. One of the most liberal voices online is The Young Turks who are all about doing the right thing, tolerating and respecting others views but yet what did one of their presenters (Jimmy Dore) do two nights back at the Republican National Convention, but spit in the face of Alex Jones. Very tolerant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QVYSU3TzCU

Twitter and the Christian Bakery both acted within the limits of the law (I'm hoping the bakery win their appeal). But their respective actions were both pretty repugnant, regardless of what Milo or the holy book might have said.

circadian

Milo is an attention whore, plain and simple. I seen a picture a few weeks ago where he was fat shaming a guy at the gym.

He didn't have the stones to actually say anything directly to the person but was happy enough to broadcast it all over the net.

Just like Alex Jones, he's a coward that hides behind his grandstanding and attention seeking rhetoric.

I'd almost throw Willie Fraser into the group but I'm convinced he's actually nuts.

Outlaw Pete

circadian wrote: »

Milo is an attention whore, plain and simple. I seen a picture a few weeks ago where he was fat shaming a guy at the gym.

He didn't have the stones to actually say anything directly to the person but was happy enough to broadcast it all over the net.

Yeah I seen that and thought it was a dickish thing to do for sure, as was the Playboy bunny who pretty much did the same thing last week.

Both deleted their respective postings but most likely because of the backlash rather than genuine regret for what they had done.

Milo it would seem has this fat shaming works belief which him and Jones got into at the 39min mark in the following recent appearance Milo made on his podcast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZiQ8nLScpM

20Cent

What is the regressive left?

InTheTrees

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

which him and Jones got into at the 39min mark in the following recent appearance Milo made on his podcast.

Oh god...that was hard to watch. Self important millennials getting social media confused with real life.

20Cent

Casual sexism racism etc used to be normal. Now people are sticking up for themselves and the bullies are crying about it. Shoe is on the other foot. Fools like Milio who think they can push others around are getting a taste of their own medicine. Zero sympathy for them.

Realt Dearg Sec

20Cent wrote: »

Casual sexism racism etc used to be normal. Now people are sticking up for themselves and the bullies are crying about it. Shoe is on the other foot. Fools like Milio who think they can push others around are getting a taste of their own medicine. Zero sympathy for them.

Hey, stop that, you're trampling on my free speech!!! And that's all I'm standing up for, idealism!!!! Nothing to do with hatred or supremacy, you authoritarian beta sjw!!!!

Call Me Jimmy

i hate the young turks as much as anyone but on a basic human level alex jones is not someone i have any sympathy for ever. he's a deeply manipulative individual.

Realt Dearg Sec

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

i hate the young turks as much as anyone but on a basic human level alex jones is not someone i have any sympathy for ever. he's a deeply manipulative individual.

I haven't been following thisv that closely but if the Milo types are grouping around ALEX JONES then they really need to reevaluate their stance. I mean, the guy is a certifiable tin foil hat conspiracy nut job. Made piers Morgan look good ffs.

Realt Dearg Sec

TSMGUY wrote: »

I'm desperately trying to unsubscribe from this thread but I don't know how goddamnit. I think the discussion's been had.

Cliffs
Milo's a prick
Being a prick isn't a good reason to ban someone from Twitter.
The Ghostbusters reboot sucks unless you're a kid.
RIP Harold Ramis

THE END

But seriously, how the **** do I unsubscribe from this thread?

Click unfollow. I'm from the other side and I did the same thing. But just when i thought I was out...they pulled me back in...

Outlaw Pete

20Cent wrote: »

Casual sexism racism etc used to be normal. Now people are sticking up for themselves and the bullies are crying about it. Shoe is on the other foot. Fools like Milio who think they can push others around are getting a taste of their own medicine. Zero sympathy for them.

Your post doesn't make much sense. Do you really think users should be removed from Twitter for 'causal sexism? Seriously?

Look, nobody would have a problem with Milo's account being permanently suspended if everyone that did what he did faced the same wrath, but they don't, far from it. Again, Azealia Banks did all of what you condemn and then some, but Twitter pretty much just said 'Work away girl'. She was eventually removed for racially abusing Zayn Malik but it shouldn't have had to get as far as that.

This is why people are convinced that Milo has not been removed for the reasons given but more that it has all just been used as a stick to hit him with. Especially given that he nothing in comparison to what is seemingly allowed to take place on Twitter on a daily basis. It's not about people thinking he is a swell guy, some of things he says are despicable, most would concede that. It's about consistency and a fair, unbiased application of the rules. There are blacklivesmatter suporters (genuinely) calling for the killing of members of the police force and jihadists on twitter ffs but wait, a black woman has had some fake tweets attributed to her.. oh noes.

And before you come back and start citing racist tweets and how Milo orchestrated users to attack her... he did neither. Leslie however, did both, given than she retweeted one user and said to her followers "Get her" and retweeted another who said Milo was the 'Uncle Tom of gay people'. They are the facts, be nice if those justifying the actions of Jack & Co here paid some heed to them. Why should Milo be subjected to a standard that nobody else is? Answer that question please as anything else is irrelevant.

Junkyard Tom

20Cent wrote: »

What is the regressive left?

A term primarily used by people whining about views they don't like, views mostly confined to university campuses, but played up as a threat to western civilisation itself.

At best the term 'regressive left' could be applied to people/groups/businesses who want to silence 'dissent' as the entire mainstream media did with Corbyn's and Sanders' support which is far more worrying than an attention-whore like Milo getting pushed off the twitter stage.

Wibbs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I didn't mind the movie so much, humour just seemed immature to me, far more than the original was.

Aye, but it's not aimed at you. The penny dropped for me after watching it. It's a Chick Flic(™) version of a US frat party flic. American Pie for women. It's aimed squarely and cynically at that audience, just like every soppy rom com where the mousey but quirky lass unlucky in love gets the Earl of Billionaireshire.

It's got the pretty Himbo, it's got the Sassy Black Woman(™) "Ah Hell no!"©, it's got the quirky oddball with freaky hair for the lesbians, it's got the cut price Jenny Aniston type and the Fat Lass who Kicks Aaassss(™)© and of course none of the women break that certain level of beauty where the "that bitch!" sensor is triggered. It's akin to taking a 1950's buddy movie aimed at men and putting it through the Reverso Machine. The Ghostbusters bit is merely an overlay for all that. If anything it gets in the way. So yeah IMHO that's the mistake reviewers are making, it's got eff all to do with Ghostbusters really. It would be like watching a porno based on Toy Story, the Toy Story bit isn't what's being sold.

conorhal

InTheTrees wrote: »

Oh god...that was hard to watch. Self important millennials getting social media confused with real life.

I couldn't tell if he was a real person or a character from a Brett Easton Ellis novel.
Clearly he's a agent provocateur and little more, but I'm uncomfortable banning such people, he has a point when he said that without douchbags like him challenging the consensus then nobody's required to critically evaluate their own thinking or defend it. Unchallenged thinking can quickly become dogma, which is why there is a lot to be said for the long tradition of the 'Devil's advocate'.

It's been mentioned how acceptable casual racism and sexism was at one time, it was pervasive in society. Well somebody had to stand up at some point and express the unpopular and challenging opinion that talking like that was not on, and face down the consensus that it was harmless fun.
If you don't stand up for (as he refers to himself) 'the dangerous fags' then you shouldn't be all that surprised when nobody stands up when they come to silence you. Even the likes of Germaine Greer (another controversialist) once beloved of the left is suddenly getting banned from college campus's by the triggerypuff brigade.

.

Thoie

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Look, nobody would have a problem with Milo's account being permanently suspended if everyone that did what he did faced the same wrath, but they don't, far from it. Again, Azealia Banks did all of what you condemn and then some, but Twitter pretty much just said 'Work away girl'. She was eventually removed for racially abusing Zayn Malik but it shouldn't have had to get as far as that.

Azealia Banks did x,y,z (I've no idea who that person is) a number of times by the sounds of it, and was eventually removed. Milo Wotsit also did x,y,z a number of times, and was eventually removed.

Looks consistent to me.

A Little Pony

The young Turks is an echo chamber and that Cenk presenter is the worst debater I have ever seen. He debated a guy recently at a political event and all he could do was be personal and he lost the debate. Ben Shapiro would literally annihilate him in a debate.

Which is why he never has any such people on his show.

InTheTrees

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Why should Milo be subjected to a standard that nobody else is? Answer that question please as anything else is irrelevant.

Unfortunately Twitter is just a business and he signed the T&C's. That other people dont get the same treatment means little. Its like removing fakes from amazon.com.

The Company always wins because the customer signed up and agreed to their rules.

Arcade_Tryer

InTheTrees wrote: »

Unfortunately Twitter is just a business and he signed the T&C's. That other people dont get the same treatment means little. Its like removing fakes from amazon.com.

The Company always wins because the customer signed up and agreed to their rules.

Again. Disingenuous reasoning.

Twitter is not "just a business" in the spectrum of modern society. Twitter is recognized as the number 1 social media platform for famous people and ordinary folk. A shared meeting place. That is happens to be a private company is only relevant if you agree that suppressing speech is a good thing. Twitter has done both itself and the fundamental selling point of its company a disservice. Not to mention all those who believe in free speech.

And for the record, I don't know much about this Milo character. But he sounds like a prick. And a lot of what I've read from him is repugnant. Which makes it all the more important that he is heard, and subsequently ignored or ridiculed, provided his "trolling" cannot be defeated with reasoned argument.

InTheTrees

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

AThat is happens to be a private company is only relevant if you agree that suppressing speech is a good thing.

Well no. Its relevant because it is a private company and customers sign up to obey their rules.

He's still free to say whatever he likes. Twitter doesnt control free speech.

Hande hoche!

A Little Pony wrote: »

The young Turks is an echo chamber and that Cenk presenter is the worst debater I have ever seen. He debated a guy recently at a political event and all he could do was be personal and he lost the debate. Ben Shapiro would literally annihilate him in a debate.

Which is why he never has any such people on his show.

I found it amusing that one of them was screaming, calling the gatecrasher a fat fu*k given the state of Cenk.

Arcade_Tryer

InTheTrees wrote: »

Well no. Its relevant because it is a private company and customers sign up to obey their rules.

He's still free to say whatever he likes. Twitter doesnt control free speech.

So you're not going to acknowledge the bigger picture here? You're sticking to the "it's a business line". Any liberal worth their salt would disagree with this decision by Twitter. As said, it has done discourse a disservice here.

InTheTrees

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

So you're not going to acknowledge the bigger picture here? You're sticking to the "it's a business line".

I think I acknowledged the bigger picture by saying twitter doesnt control "free speech". There is no first amendment case here. Twitter does govern their own little world though. A bit like Boards.

hatrickpatrick

It's not about the legality, it's about the principle. Twitter might have the legal right to ban him, that doesn't mean they are morally right to do so.

Arcade_Tryer

InTheTrees wrote: »

I think I acknowledged the bigger picture by saying twitter doesnt control "free speech". There is no first amendment case here. Twitter does govern their own little world though. A bit like Boards.

True. Twitter doesn't control free speech. But it has no problem with suppressing it. That is the wider point.

Venom

Hande hoche! wrote: »

I found it amusing that one of them was screaming, calling the gatecrasher a fat fu*k given the state of Cenk.

She's previously ranted about how evil fat shaming is not to mention her boss is bigger than the guy she's insulting :pac: The sleazy knacker on their panel who took a mouthful of water and spat it at the guy was pure scum tho.

FA Hayek

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

A term primarily used by people whining about views they don't like,

Although that is a typical AH rebuttal that will get the odd thanks, the term itself was popularised by Maajid Nawaz.

Maajid Nawaz is by no means a whiner but has been subjected to plenty of abuse from the regressive left as he calls it because he had the audacity the call on a reform of Islam. He made the point that it was more controversial to call on reform then for an Iman to call for on support for ISIS. Root of the problem right there.

Mark Tapley

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

True. Twitter doesn't control free speech. But it has no problem with suppressing it. That is the wider point.

I think Twitter does not want to lose its celebrities and needs to be seen to be protecting them. This is about PR rather than free speech. If Milo big gob is bad for business he's got to go.

SeanW

If anyone is unclear as to what has happened, you need to understand what's going on with Twitter. Twitter outsourced its censorship rules to groups like Feminist Frequency. https://blog.twitter.com/2016/announcing-the-twitter-trust-safety-council

FF is led by Anita Sarkeesian, whose is a traditional leftist in that she shrieks hysterically about imaginary nonsense, like how Super Mario Brothers promotes rape culture and suchlike insanity. Like with most leftists, their first instinct is to scream "racist" "misogynist" "something-phobe" etc. at anyone who questions their PC-left ideology.

Milo has been immune to this up to a point because first of all as a gay man, he's on the Left's victimhood scale. Secondly, the first recourse of any leftist, i.e. to scream "racist" to silence an opponent does not work against Milo because he never stops talking about how much he likes black c*ck. But the left fundamentally seeks only to silence all opposition so as soon as Twitter gave control of its platform to vermin like Anita Sarkeesian, it was only a matter of time before she began using that control to silence critics of feminism.

Another problem for Milo is that homosexuals have been falling on the Left's pyramid of victimhood. Case in point is Black Lives Matters disruption of the Toronto Pride parade earlier this month, which occurred less than a month after the worst attack against LGBT people in American, and probably Western history. That this was allowed to happen proves:

1. That the Left no longer "has your back" if you're an LGBT person. Maybe the last letter, but the first three? You're on your own.
2. That the Left is disappearing up its own backside.
3. That BLM are basically jerks.

Ush1 wrote: »

He can't be taken seriously. I heard him on the Joe Rogan podcast and is happy to hate Islam for homophobic sentiments, but doesn't see the hipocrasy in being a Christian.

Remind me again, which religion was the attacker who murdered those 50 gay people in the Pulse nightclub in Orlando?

If you go to a fundamentalist mosque, which is a lot of them, you'll hear stuff like "homosexuals are an abomination, the most merciful thing you can do to them is kill them" like a Muslim preacher in Orlando said in that cities main mosque just before the Orlando attack.

Last time I was in church, I just heard a boring speech about how we need God, some relatively tame prayers and creeds, nothing like what is preached in mosques. I suspect others like myself who were raised Christian would have had similar experiences. Consequently Christians don't go around murdering homosexuals in Western countries, even in the worst parts of the Bible Belt the worst controversy is when some aggro-seeking leftists look (and they have to search hard) to find a bakery that doesn't want to bake a gay-wedding cake. And that's clearly more to do with hating Christianity than protecting gay people.

If you are seriously equating homophobia in Christianity with homophobia in Islam, then you are clearly suffering from some extreme form of cognitive dissonance. They are not in the same league. Not even close.

Elliott S

This thread reminds of a picture I saw on Twitter last week:

https://s32.postimg.org/nwtxazd6t/Cnv5_Po_WYAAal49_png_large.png

Outlaw Pete

Seen it more like the following myself.

https://s32.postimg.org/inary6ynp/fyp.jpg

Mark Tapley

SeanW wrote: »

If anyone is unclear as to what has happened, you need to understand what's going on with Twitter. Twitter outsourced its censorship rules to groups like Feminist Frequency. https://blog.twitter.com/2016/announcing-the-twitter-trust-safety-council

FF is led by Anita Sarkeesian, whose is a traditional leftist in that she shrieks hysterically about imaginary nonsense, like how Super Mario Brothers promotes rape culture and suchlike insanity. Like with most leftists, their first instinct is to scream "racist" "misogynist" "something-phobe" etc. at anyone who questions their PC-left ideology.

Milo has been immune to this up to a point because first of all as a gay man, he's on the Left's victimhood scale. Secondly, the first recourse of any leftist, i.e. to scream "racist" to silence an opponent does not work against Milo because he never stops talking about how much he likes black c*ck. But the left fundamentally seeks only to silence all opposition so as soon as Twitter gave control of its platform to vermin like Anita Sarkeesian, it was only a matter of time before she began using that control to silence critics of feminism.

Another problem for Milo is that homosexuals have been falling on the Left's pyramid of victimhood. Case in point is Black Lives Matters disruption of the Toronto Pride parade earlier this month, which occurred less than a month after the worst attack against LGBT people in American, and probably Western history. That this was allowed to happen proves:

1. That the Left no longer "has your back" if you're an LGBT person. Maybe the last letter, but the first three? You're on your own.
2. That the Left is disappearing up its own backside.
3. That BLM are basically jerks.

Remind me again, which religion was the attacker who murdered those 50 gay people in the Pulse nightclub in Orlando?

If you go to a fundamentalist mosque, which is a lot of them, you'll hear stuff like "homosexuals are an abomination, the most merciful thing you can do to them is kill them" like a Muslim preacher in Orlando said in that cities main mosque just before the Orlando attack.

Last time I was in church, I just heard a boring speech about how we need God, some relatively tame prayers and creeds, nothing like what is preached in mosques. I suspect others like myself who were raised Christian would have had similar experiences. Consequently Christians don't go around murdering homosexuals in Western countries, even in the worst parts of the Bible Belt the worst controversy is when some aggro-seeking leftists look (and they have to search hard) to find a bakery that doesn't want to bake a gay-wedding cake. And that's clearly more to do with hating Christianity than protecting gay people.

If you are seriously equating homophobia in Christianity with homophobia in Islam, then you are clearly suffering from some extreme form of cognitive dissonance. They are not in the same league. Not even close.

I wouldn't worry about it if I was you. They are pandering to the left now as that suits the narrative. The right is gaining momentum and soon anybody that doesn't think all Muslims are cûnts will be getting banned instead. Buy into media constructed stereotypes at your peril. Leftist blah blah , rightist blah blah meanwhile the populace have reasonable opinions.

pumpkin4life

Wibbs wrote: »

Aye, but it's not aimed at you. The penny dropped for me after watching it. It's a Chick Flic(™) version of a US frat party flic. American Pie for women. It's aimed squarely and cynically at that audience, just like every soppy rom com where the mousey but quirky lass unlucky in love gets the Earl of Billionaireshire.

It's got the pretty Himbo, it's got the Sassy Black Woman(™) "Ah Hell no!"©, it's got the quirky oddball with freaky hair for the lesbians, it's got the cut price Jenny Aniston type and the Fat Lass who Kicks Aaassss(™)© and of course none of the women break that certain level of beauty where the "that bitch!" sensor is triggered. It's akin to taking a 1950's buddy movie aimed at men and putting it through the Reverso Machine. The Ghostbusters bit is merely an overlay for all that. If anything it gets in the way. So yeah IMHO that's the mistake reviewers are making, it's got eff all to do with Ghostbusters really. It would be like watching a porno based on Toy Story, the Toy Story bit isn't what's being sold.

The marketing for it is bizarre on another note.

Too much sexual innuendo to be a kids movie.

Women not attractive enough/not enough raunchy humor for teenage/early 20s lads.

Too different from the first two (four women!) to cash in on the nostalgia crew of lads.

Older people, forget about it.

Seems to be the only market for this movie are blue haired, tabletop playing ones; lads who want to jump on the "how progressive am I" virtue signalling (lovingly crafted!) train, and the flipside of course; lads who hate it cause it be feminist ****e/ or how bad is this movie going to be (my one, sadly enough) or whatever.

So that leaves two things. Is the marketing for this movie that bad? Or is there more of these types of people out there than I thought before, that would get these lads the money back?

This ain't a normal chick flick movie. It's a Millennial Geek women one if any.

It's bombing at the box office, thats for sure.

Mark Tapley

"are blue haired, tabletop playing ones; lads who want to jump on the "how progressive am I" virtue signalling (lovingly crafted!) train, and the flipside of course; lads who hate it cause it be feminist ****e/ or how bad is this movie going to be (my one, sadly enough) or whatever".

I've tried google translate but it suggests " unknown language". Random words all jumbled with prejudice wahoo.(arse biscuits).

Venom

pumpkin4life wrote: »

The marketing for it is bizarre on another note.

Too much sexual innuendo to be a kids movie.

Women not attractive enough/not enough raunchy humor for teenage/early 20s lads.

Too different from the first two (four women!) to cash in on the nostalgia crew of lads.

Older people, forget about it.

Seems to be the only market for this movie are blue haired, tabletop playing ones; lads who want to jump on the "how progressive am I" virtue signalling (lovingly crafted!) train, and the flipside of course; lads who hate it cause it be feminist ****e/ or how bad is this movie going to be (my one, sadly enough) or whatever.

So that leaves two things. Is the marketing for this movie that bad? Or is there more of these types of people out there than I thought before, that would get these lads the money back?

This ain't a normal chick flick movie. It's a Millennial Geek women one if any.

It's bombing at the box office, thats for sure.

I think Sony knew they had a stinker on there hands very early on hence the long delay in a trailer of any sorts being released. Sony's marketing department would have to be totally brain dead to allow the director and stars go on such a rampage against the films target audience unless the wanted to have the sexism excuse for the movies fallings.

Elliott S

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Seen it more like the following myself.

https://s32.postimg.org/inary6ynp/fyp.jpg

I can't believe you bothered to do that. Pathetic. Especially the 'fyp'. Christ.

Renegade Mechanic

Elliott S wrote: »

I can't believe you bothered to do that. Pathetic. Especially the 'fyp'. Christ.

Really? I laughed anyway. But then I - an admitted supporter of the loud billionaire himself - laughed at the picture of Trump in the attachment, so who can account for taste?

Oh how the arrogant fall, and over silly little things like this.
It's not "pathetic", even if it is something you dislike, because an effort was expended towards it.

At the end of the day, he's put more effort into that than you have into your opinion of it, but I get that.
'It's not worth your time of response. You're better than that, and that's all that matters.'

Right?

orubiru

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Does anyone fancy explaining Gamergate to me? I've no idea what it is and I suspect I might be better off that way.

This probably won't be a popular opinion but you should try Encyclopedia Dramatica for a good explanation of Gamergate and the multitude of characters involved.

Please be warned that the Encyclopedia Dramatica site can be VERY Not Safe For Work. So do not open it in work!

Let me explain, ED is basically the only site that will give you an unbiased overview and description of Gamergate and the people involved. Yes, it's vulgar and crass and very juvenile BUT it's the only place I've seen online that has screenshots, research and (most importantly) facts. At least, this is my view.

The main players on both sides are mocked, ridiculed and their lies are exposed. That's about as good as you are going to get.

Now Gamergate is kind of like a "boogeyman" people can invoke when there is some kind of trouble brewing in nerd and geek circles online.

pumpkin4life

Say what you will about Anita Sarkessian, but that's one hell of a clever gig she's got going there.

Or any of the lads that made money out of Gamergate.