im personally ready for a new new reboot of bsg, hopefully a queerer, more diverse, reboot

@@jonni2317 Agreed.

​@@jonni2317Yessssssss!!!! That shit was so dramatic it bordered on being camp to begin with.

I am pretty sure, that, like the majority of mormons, he has no clue about their own mythology.

@@jonni2317oooo that would be interesting to see someone pull off

Exactly. In the movie, Klendafu is shown to be on the other side of the galaxy. It would take hundreds of millions of years for an asteroid to reach Earth. But even if it was just the next star over that still represents tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years of travel time.

The logic of the movies propaganda lied. They didn't send the asteroid.

@alexsmith2910 that is the other possibility, that the whole war is over literally nothing

Shadenfreude

I actually really want to talk about the Fallout show and the backlash now that I've seen it as well (as of last night I just finished it) so maybe that will be next week or the week after.

'97 is so good omg

I'm reminded of a notroversy a few years back when one of the kinds of alt-right clown who watches people like Shad tried to claim that a fan of a KZfaq channel, "GirlfriendReviews", sent them a message threatening to hurt, kill, and otherwise inconvenience them. The thing was, it was obvious to anyone but them that it was fake, because not only did it not sound at all like a member of the fandom, it didn't even sound like a human being. It _did_ however sound exactly like the kind of caricature of the left that the alt-right have been screeching about for years, and proved pretty definitively that they genuinely believed real human beings acted that way. These people are _genuinely_ delusional. They do not exist in the reality you or I inhabit. Their entire world view is a propaganda screed, and they're shadowboxing their own propaganda into oblivion.

I think Verhoeven wanted to make it ambiguous because it kind of makes the point about the film having propagandistic tonal elements more resonant, whereas the original author of the books presumably felt otherwise.

@@CH4R10T_TV oh yeah it’s definitely ambiguous but I definitely feel it’s worth discussing at least, mostly because within the context of a movie it makes the most sense, since we are rarely shown scenes that have no purpose.

You'll note, by the by, that Shad also describes the humans in space as settling empty land. But it's not empty; the bugs are on it. The bugs, in some readings of Starship Troopers, are interpreted for how fascists sometimes see "lesser" forms of life, especially as a metaphor for "undesirable" human beings. Notably, Shad also describes the land in America as being empty, but as you observe, it was occupied by indigenous people. He's essentially painting a picture of who he sees as a full and legitimate being worthy of human consideration. I think the parallel pretty clearly demonstrates that Shad is exactly the kind of person that more progressive reads of the film are denigrating.

like seriously he's just trying to preach here and it's clear his target audience is children

I'd love to hear what dogshit he has to say about this universally loved indie game series.

@@anitaremenarova6662 sadly there's entire right wing discourse about hades 2 being wоke (devs dared to add two fаt characters among 20 insanely hot characters) Shad included. I'm just surprised no progressive streamers i know mentioned this.

@@koshetz Did they not catch how insanely progressive the first Hades was? Let me guess, it's just chuds getting mad about games they never played and aren't going to.

I'll look into it, thanks for the recommendation!

I've learned a little bit about it, but it could definitely make for an interesting video!

I don't think it's an assumption, I actually said I wouldn't have assumed it and it sounds like a confession, which means I'm attributing that view to Shad in particular, not Mormons.

@@CH4R10T_TV He's talking about Mormon history though. I wouldn't trust Shad's assessment of the history either, though it's illustrative of the dynamics inside of the church.

@convenientEstelle Well I only attribute Shad's views to Shad, I am also aware of real problems with the Mormon church contemporarily and historically, but just like if I was responding to someone from another religion advocating their personal politics, I only take their specific interpretation of that religion's history as far as describing their views. The history of the religion itself has to stand on its own. But having a weird supremacist describe a church's history in a really sinister light may look that sinister specifically because their reading of it incorporates their prescriptions, which is why I read it that way. To go a little further by way of explanation, when I asked, "Why would that be a problem though?" I'm playfully pointing to what I see as the obvious contradiction in Shad's views that his religious ideals should dominate society to the detriment of others because his religion (as he sees it) is superior, while also taking issue with religious discrimination. That kind of hypocrisy only makes sense in the mind of a supremacist, which is also a huge theme of how I talk about the film. You can see this with, for example, racist Zionists who play defense for the government of Israel, who by way of attempting to rhetorically justify their supremacism over Arab Palestinians, insinuate that Israeli Jews and Arab Palestinians somehow have "different interests," as if we have to choose one. It's implicit advocacy of enacting supremacist policies, if not outright war. American conservatives do the same thing when they fearmonger about non-white groups coming to American and outnumbering the white native-born population. The implicit insinuation is that different races have different interests and we have to choose one over the other. It's a definitively racist worldview. When I say, "Are you saying you have different interests?" that's exactly what I'm referencing. It's an implicitly bigoted worldview that Shad wants to present as normal. In other words, there's a lingering contradiction in Shad's rhetoric and worldview that is revealing of supremacism, and sometimes it takes someone pointing to it for people to catch it. I've looked into stuff about the LDS church before, but my main issue is how Shad's rhetoric comes together. I wouldn't insinuate Mormons have different interests from other people necessarily, but I also don't believe in that way of thinking about groups of people, which I tried to clarify almost immediately after. I hope this helps explain where I'm coming from.

@@CH4R10T_TV There's a lot to be said about victimhood narratives but the first thing that I would advise is to not try to validate or invalidate them. It's much more useful to look at how they are used than if they are justified or not according to one's moral judgment.

@convenientEstelle I don't know if you're really following me, because I just explained how my original point was specifically about how Shad's narrative about the victimization of Mormons was being used (i.e. how he deploys it in his argument). The thing you're saying about how I should respond was how I responded. I was looking at the implications for his worldview. EDIT: Either way, I think the moral condemnation occurs by way of insinuation, because it's implicit in my argument that I object to racial or religious discrimination and supremacist thinking.