From: moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
Subject: Re: 12 STRONG: The Left is Upset (Again)
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!peer02.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad!fx06.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: 12 STRONG: The Left is Upset (Again)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv,rec.arts.movies.current-films
References: <atropos-FADE79.12261328012018@news.giganews.com>
<pwsbC.537981$iX.302982@fx39.iad>
<atropos-AB6580.15160828012018@news.giganews.com>
<45GbC.1718$Ia3.404@fx44.iad>
<atropos-485159.08560429012018@news.giganews.com>
<wVIbC.3044$at7.117@fx43.iad>
<atropos-0F0797.10181329012018@news.giganews.com>
From: moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <atropos-0F0797.10181329012018@news.giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <MRJbC.3610$x_2.861@fx06.iad>
X-Complaints-To: http://abuse.usenetxs.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 18:37:32 UTC
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:37:30 -0500
X-Received-Body-CRC: 4077312564
X-Received-Bytes: 3530
Print Article
Forward Article
On 1/29/2018 1:18 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <wVIbC.3044$at7.117@fx43.iad>,
>   moviePig<pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 1/29/2018 11:56 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <45GbC.1718$Ia3.404@fx44.iad>,
>>>    moviePig<pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/28/2018 6:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <pwsbC.537981$iX.302982@fx39.iad>,
>>>>>     moviePig<pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>>> Though I (fwiw) am neither upset, nor upset if the Left's upset, I'm
>>>>>> curious to know which of this guy's ideas you find particularly absurd.
>>>>>
>>>>> Um... all of them?
>>>>
>>>> Then let's take two:
>>>>
>>>>       "Instead of movies that objectify women, [I suggest] more films that
>>>> portray sex and sexuality in intelligent ways."
>>>>
>>>>       "[Most war-movies] model a cliched form of masculinity that veers
>>>> from simplistic to monstrous."
>>>>
>>>> If each of those points is absurd, what's your alternative view?
>>>
>>> That they're neither simplistic nor monstrous and Hemsworth's looks are
>>> hardly 'grievous'.
>>
>> So, I infer that you in fact *don't* contest the first quote (about
>> objectifying women).
> 
> No, I'm just bored with that whole nonsense. Men are just as objectified
> in movies.
> 
>> In the second quote, he actually called Hemsworth "grievously
>> *handsome*", which seems entirely analogous to "awfully good-looking" or
>> "terribly attractive". Moreover, in (non-Oscar) combat movies,
>> 'simplistic cliched masculinity' seems a rather common trope.
> 
> Only if you go in with that mindset from the get-go. There was nothing
> simplistic or cliched in AMERICAN SNIPER or ZERO DARK THIRTY, which this
> preening ass lumped in with his whine about 12 STRONG.
> 
>> Point being that, while some of the Left-leaning loons you dig up and
>> post here do occasionally illustrate a degree of entertaining lunacy, my
>> sense is that you didn't bother to actually read this guy...
> 
> I read the entire thing. He's a lunatic who rises and sleeps under the
> blanket of freedom the men and women he loathes provide, then questions
> the manner in which they provide it.

Re whom you think he "loathes":

 
https://theintercept.com/2015/01/08/clint-eastwood-ignores-history-a...

-- 

- - - - - - - -
   YOUR taste at work...
     http://www.moviepig.com