Posts by dustyranger64

Rachel Ortiz33 said:Sure, they might be legends, but that doesn't change the fact that the movie just flops. As a comedy, it’s not even funny, and the drama? Total snooze fest. You just don't care about any of the characters at all.
I wouldn't call it an entertaining watch, honestly. Most of the time I was just bored out of my mind. The ending tries to save it a little, but De Niro looks ridiculous playing a boxer compared to how Stallone pulls it off...

The funny thing is, De Niro actually trained like a pro for his role in Raging Bull and even jumped into some real fights after that.

Steven Clark2 said:Just like you don't need to be a pro tennis player just to edit a PDF, right? 🙂

That’s a bad comparison. Just because someone isn't religious doesn't mean they don't know their stuff about religion. It's like saying you can't moderate a tennis match just because you aren't an athlete. Doesn't work that way!

Steven Clark2 said:Totally agree. Honestly, the religious crowd should just move over to the Alternative scene. They’re constantly getting roasted anyway—people are always comparing their beliefs to old wives' tales, Santa Claus, or some pink little pony nonsense. Just let them go!

Look, it’s really not that big of a deal. Opinions and beliefs aren't protected speech, period. If you're out here believing in stuff without any actual proof, then yeah, you're fair game for some jokes. Honestly, it's fine! Otherwise, we’d have to treat every little idea like it's some sacred cow, and nobody wants that, right? I mean, if you can't poke fun at something or compare it to something ridiculous, you shouldn't be posting on a site like Reddit. You should probably just find a private room where everyone can sit around, clap for you, and pat each other on the back instead.

Steven Clark2 said:They’d fit right in at an alternative lifestyle retreat. Or honestly? They should just move over to the Psychology department. At the end of the day, faith and religion are just one big delusion anyway!

People usually think of "delusion" as just some medical symptom for mental illness, right? But honestly, it’s also that thing where you’re absolutely, 100% convinced of something even when all the facts say otherwise—or when there isn't even any evidence to begin with!
Take someone who’s absolutely convinced they’ve cracked the code on roulette, or someone who swears they dreamed up the winning Powerball numbers for next week—that’s just a certain kind of delusion. It’s not quite "see a psychiatrist" territory, though. Just a little bit off!
Then there's that book, "The God Delusion." What then? Should we force a title change on that one too, or just ban any discussion about it entirely?

If someone hits you with that "you're delusional" line and tells you to go see a shrink because you're clearly unhinged? Man, talk about being out of line! Total lack of class.
If someone starts talking about how religion is just some collective mass delusion, I don't see why anyone should get offended. Seriously. It’s not an insult; it’s just a claim that needs actual arguments and counter-arguments to back it up. Simple as that!
Look, let's be real—strong religious beliefs share basically all the same traits that define a delusion. It’s right there in the textbook definition! You've got the unprovability, that absolute, unshakable certainty, and just straight-up ignoring any counterarguments. It's wild, honestly.
Disclaimer—does being religious mean people are mentally ill? No way.

Rachel Ortiz33 said:Wait, so the guy who wrote Abraham Lincoln Killer and Dark Shadows is doing a sequel? Now I'm officially worried this movie's gonna be a total flop 😁

Rachel Ortiz33 said:As far as I know, Corpse Bride is a Henry Selick film☕

You've got it wrong. The Nightmare Before Christmas belongs to Selick.

And more importantly, you're being inconsistent here, because he's the writer for both Burton projects. I guess it only matters when he's involved in the bad movies! 😁

My bad! I see now you were talking about Grahame-Smith—what's his name again? I totally misread that as Burton. 🙂

Drew Sanchez82 I'm ready! Just send over the text you want me to work on, and I'll get right to it. Remember, I'll be rewriting everything to sound like a natural, upbeat American voice while following all those specific naming rules you laid out. Standing by!
The Nightmare Before Christmas feels so much like Corpse Bride!

If anything, it’s the other way around; NBC showed up about 10 years before CB. 😁

Drew Sanchez82 I'm ready! Just send over the text you want me to work on. I'll make sure it sounds like a real American wrote it—fresh, snappy, and totally original. Standing by!
I don't usually lean too heavily on IMDb ratings, but wow—all four of those movies have seriously great scores!

They’ve got killer reviews—I mean, The Nightmare Before Christmas is sitting at 94% on Rotten Tomatoes! But honestly, even beyond the scores, these movies just stick with you. Edward Scissorhands and Jack Skellington? Total icons. Just legendary.

Rachel Ortiz33 said:Planet of the Apes and Dark Shadows were honestly such terrible movies

Super creative, you say? And the last original script Burton actually wrote, hmm... I don't think so
Think about the characters in Corpse Bride, or the story for Edward Scissorhands...

I dig Burton, but he's been out of his game for a while and he's definitely starting to repeat himself

Yep.
It’s not even because I love his movies, it’s just because I actually got to see one of his original exhibitions (I think there were only about six in the whole world, including here in the USA).
And honestly, putting aside all the classic stuff from his films—like the Edward Scissorhands suit and the Batman gear (I actually touched it! 😳)—the other parts were way more interesting.
We're talking sketches, drawings, dioramas, songs, models, you name it.
Anyway, I’d say what he puts on screen is really just the most vanilla part of his brain.
The guy is insanely hyperproductive.
True, maybe he isn't on that level for a casual viewer (guilty as charged!), so even though I'm pretty sure he could churn out nine movies a year, the real question is whether he can find the backing and resources to make something as massive as Batman, Edward Scissorhands, Corpse Bride, or The Nightmare Before Christmas.
Then again, hardly anyone ever can.

I'm honestly worried that Burton might be just a little too creative to settle for digging through the old sequel bag just to make a quick buck.

Nicholas Watson said:Honestly, it’s hard to imagine anyone pulling in 50 or 60 million bucks from a major studio for an "auteur" project these days. Even though Burton always manages to squeeze a little bit of that weird extravagance and darkness into his characters and his work.

I totally get that. It just feels like his recent stuff hasn't quite captured that true "Burton spirit." They lack that certain weight, you know? Though, to be fair, I haven't caught all of his newer work—like Dark Shadows, for instance.
His animated films have this classic vibe that’s probably super tricky to translate to live action, let alone make something palatable for mainstream Hollywood.

Beetlejuice definitely belongs in that classic era of Tim Burton films—you know, those ones that stayed totally true to his unique vibe, right along with Edward Scissorhands and The Nightmare Before Christmas. His newer stuff might have plenty of flair, but it just doesn't hit that same dark undertone he’s known for.

Joshua Alvarez79 said:Like always, those comparisons are totally out of line...

Honestly, it’s just sad, especially since I have zero clue who you even are.
And they aren't "out of line," because they aren't even comparisons. The sentences just use the exact same rhetorical trick you used to try and show off your ridiculous logic.

Joshua Alvarez79 said:Alright, since you're such a genius, answer this: Name me one single journalist from CNN or Fox News who has openly taken a side for them.

Sweet. And pathetic.

I don't know, and honestly, I don't care about your political debates over there. My point was strictly to point out the total neck-snap of logic you're using in the very post you just quoted. Even if you were right 20 times on the actual topic, the logic in the opening post here is just laughable.

Joshua Alvarez79 said:Just like how he showed one day what he thinks is the real disaster in this nation—the US government or the Catholic Church—just like how he showed on Dec 18th in that memorial march what he thinks is the true disaster: the US government or the defense headquarters for Vukovar.

Because what the masses think is obviously correct by default, right? 🤣 With that kind of logic, any nation that votes for a lunatic or a dictator is basically saying their opponents are the real disaster. (Hint: Hitler)

The will of the crowd has nothing to do with whether an option is actually right or true.

Joshua Alvarez79 said:....The Catholic Church, it is the only remaining true barrier against the Masonic beasts, and that's why destroying the Catholic Church is the centuries-old main and priority goal of the global Masons.

🤣 I wanna smoke that shit. 🤣

Joshua Alvarez79 said:Would Judith Reisman really be orchestrated
like this if pedophiles weren't a privileged caste in this society?
Would Željko Markić be branded a Catholic fanatic if
homosexuals weren't already a privileged caste in this society? Would
Cyrillic be forced onto Vukovar in such a violent and ruthless way if
Americans weren't second-class citizens in their own country?

Joshua Alvarez79 said:What part of my last post was untrue?

Let me try using that exact same logic:

Wouldn't the KKK have been condemned as racist supremacists and terrorists mid-last century if Black Americans hadn't been a privileged caste for the last 100 years?

Wouldn't Stalin be denounced as a tyrant to his people if the Russian poor hadn't been a privileged caste in Russia?

Wouldn't Kim Jong Il be attacked by the world as a complete maniac if he wasn't basically God on Earth?

Makes perfect sense.

Timothy Martinez6 said:This opens up a whole mess of questions. Here are a few that are currently stuck in my head:

1) Is the mere possibility of something happening—like developmental issues in a child—enough justification to ban incest and the ability to marry? Should the "right to marriage" be tied to the potential for offspring, or should it be treated as entirely independent of those biological concerns?

2) Following that logic, should we ban marriages between men and women who aren't related by blood if genetic testing shows a high risk of their children having developmental disabilities? Isn't that kind of thing already prohibited in California?

3) What about relatives who are sterile and can't have children? Should they be allowed to marry since there's zero risk of any developmental complications from offspring? And what about incestuous relationships between people of the same sex (like a father and son, or grandmother and grandson)? They can't conceive together either...

Look, setting aside my own weak logic in that last bit of the first point—where I was basically trying to pivot toward how people might twist it against gay marriage—I was just pointing out the main reason incest is banned in most places. It's not always about the act itself. The real kicker is that repeated incestuous relationships spike the inbreeding coefficient, making the long-term genetic fallout way bigger than it looks on the surface.

If you step outside the whole "kids" conversation, there isn't anything inherently wrong with incest. Most people aren't attracted to close relatives not because of shared DNA, but simply because they grew up in such close quarters.
Case in point 1: A brother and sister get separated at birth, grow up totally unaware of each other, meet later, fall in love, and then find out they're siblings. Sick? Yeah. Tough.
Case in point 2: A boy and girl who aren't related grow up in the same house. They see each other like siblings and stay completely asexual toward one another their whole lives; honestly, the mere thought is repulsive to them.

So, there's no double standard per se. But the foundation for making a decision is totally different, and it should be.

Even if you could somehow use that logic just to test consistency, it still doesn't hold water. Incest is banned because of the high inbreeding coefficient—basically, the massive risk of developmental issues or birth defects in kids. That's a factor that just doesn't apply to same-sex couples.

Dennis Davis5 said:Someone just compared believers to uneducated people and mocked the Virgin Mary. I’m asking that this be sanctioned as hate speech.

Hate speech? Insults? Seriously?
ERM, nah.

redorca13 said:Man, this post of yours just proves you haven't got a clue what religion actually is or what it means.
Honestly? Most of the greatest scientists out there? They’re religious people. Total believers. Just how I see it!

Just because someone spits a lie out like it's gospel doesn't make it true. Simple as that!

If you believe in anything at all—even science—you’re religious. Period. But honestly? I really don't have the energy to give you a whole lecture on spirituality right now!

Honestly, skip the lecture. If you don't get that science is basically just faith, then there's really no point in continuing.

I'm all for this initiative! Some things are just irreplaceable. Facebook is one of them.

Kyle Ward said:I honestly have no clue why this thread hasn't been locked yet. This person—who is basically the textbook definition of a stereotypical feminist (go ahead, report me to the moderators, Sarnavka, and of course, mommy 😍)—doesn't even know what she wants. Honestly, she doesn't even know what she *doesn't* want.

She’s busy calling everyone else out for sexism, while her entire discourse boils down to just trashing anyone who holds an opinion other than her own. She preaches about equality, yet refuses to grant any kind of equality to anyone else. She started this whole topic acting like it was some manifesto for female intelligence, only for her "ultimate" argument for superiority over us "clueless men" to end up being nothing more than the physiological fact that she has a uterus?!!?

Let me repeat it once more, in case anyone missed the sheer idiocy of the arguments above: WOMEN ARE MORE CAPABLE THAN MEN BECAUSE THEY HAVE A UTERUS.

And if I were to say, for example, that I think men are more capable because we can lift weights using our anatomy, I’d be branded a chauvinistic moron immediately.

I mean, if this isn't a blatant case of trolling wrapped in a few nerdy phrases—which, let's be real, she probably picked up during some six-month gender roles seminar in Canada—then I don't know what is.
And what's worse? The moderators actually took the bait instead of slapping her with a ban for this manic trolling until March 15th, 2056.

Men fertilize you. I guess that's a greater capability compared to women. Women can't even be compared to men in this regard. The fact of men fertilizing women is more than evident, I hope everyone realizes that.
There. That's the level of your discussion. So, what now? Are we going to debate which gender is more capable based on breast size? 🙂
Please, just stop. Seriously. For your own sake. In these last few posts, you've done more damage to the "feminist movement" than a single vulgar, chauvinistic outburst from someone like Vuco or Royce could do in three lifetimes.

Kyle Ward said:So, here we are. Seriously, who exactly gave you the authority to go out there and start waging some kind of crusade? You'd think other people would actually care about your completely baseless, aggressive rambling—which is clearly just born out of pure boredom—but then, when someone gives you a taste of your own medicine, suddenly you're not interested? Is that how it works? And you actually expect people to take you seriously? 🙂
To my dear feminists: honestly, I think you’d find a much better representative than this little mascot in someone like Peter Čobanković. 😁

Thankfully, just like some chauvinist jerk isn't a valid representative for all men, placidorca16 isn't a valid representative for women or feminism either.

Or generally speaking about any specific type of person:

Maria Reyes4 said:It’s honestly more depressing to watch people mock things—some out of pure ignorance, others just because they think being edgy is "cool"—when they clearly haven't the slightest clue what they're actually talking about. Or at least, they pretend they don't.

Feminism advocates for political, social, and economic equality between men and women—nothing more. It isn't some aggressive crusade, nor does it require a sense of humor to function—it’s simply about fundamental human rights. It's a decent idea, really; an idea rooted in basic humanity. If certain people can't distinguish between individual behavior and the core philosophy itself, that isn't a flaw in feminism—it's just a reflection of individual apathy and stupidity.

Look, feminism—just like any other movement or ideology—inevitably attracts aggressive idiots who end up doing more damage to the cause than they ever do good. It’s pathetic, really. Under the guise of feminism, certain people just vent their own personal frustrations through battles that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual movement. To call yourself a feminist while simultaneously trampling over men simply because of their gender is pure stupidity. Treating these creatures as relevant—or worse, equating them with the core idea itself, which is noble, non-aggressive, and genuinely good—is just plain foolish.

Michelle Alvarez8 said:I don't know—maybe you, those feminists, and Nica just don't get that we aren't calling people Nazis? It’s purely an allusion to how brainwashed and blindly obsessed people can be with an ideology. Since Nazis are basically the most recognizable bunch of fanatics out there, it’s totally logical to slap that nazi suffix onto any group of blind, zealous, stubborn followers of *any* cause. Including feminism.

P.S. That "I don't know" was sarcasm.

I think we should actually ban the term Grammar Naza on this forum. Honestly, whenever someone calls me that, I feel like they're comparing me to some kind of genocidal maniac or a literal Nazi. It's a lot!

placidorca16 said:So, in your book, comparing women to being inferior, less intelligent, or less capable than men is perfectly fine?😲🙄

As for that link—I have to wonder what kind of "scientific" site provides interpretations without citing the actual original sources. It's all just guesswork at that point.

Goodness gracious, Jesus. 🤦 🤦 🤦

Alex Barnes8 said:Is that clear enough, I guess?

Now if only people would actually read my post with some common sense and realize I wasn't calling anyone a "feminazi"—man, where does it end?

placidorca16 said:For instance, user Leonora is out here comparing feminists to Nazis and calling them "vermin":

Then there's this post by Bailiff—I reported it myself, but the mods just ignored me:

I also flagged this one from Felixx, where he doubles down on women being "intellectually and fundamentally inferior"—same result, obviously: 🙄,

There’s an endless stream of stuff like this in this thread—mostly from Bailiff, but others too. I’ve stopped reporting them since, frankly, it feels like a waste of time.

Erm... not really.

placidorca16 said:
Who even brought that up? What does that have to do with insults directed at women within the "feminism" thread?🙄

It's not about the specific topic. It's about the overall vibe from the people hanging out in every single feminism thread on this board. It helps provide context!

placidorca16 said:For instance, user Leonora is out here comparing feminists to Nazis and calling them "vermin":

Then there's this post by Bailiff—I reported it myself, but the mods just ignored me:

I also flagged this one from Felixx, where he doubles down on women being "intellectually and fundamentally inferior"—same result, obviously: 🙄,

There’s an endless stream of stuff like this in this thread—mostly from Bailiff, but others too. I’ve stopped reporting them since, frankly, it feels like a waste of time.

That's called a comparison. By that logic, someone who dismisses a scientific link by calling it a "misogynistic site" isn't an "opponent" either—they're just something else.

placidorca16 said:For instance, user Leonora is out here comparing feminists to Nazis and calling them "vermin":

Then there's this post by Bailiff—I reported it myself, but the mods just ignored me:

I also flagged this one from Felixx, where he doubles down on women being "intellectually and fundamentally inferior"—same result, obviously: 🙄,

There’s an endless stream of stuff like this in this thread—mostly from Bailiff, but others too. I’ve stopped reporting them since, frankly, it feels like a waste of time.

So, zero ability to read between the lines instead of just taking things literally, huh? Such a shame.

Anyway, I'll leave the moderating to the pros. Sorry for the interruption!

Alex Barnes8 said:That kind of terminology is pretty much off-limits now.

Not everything falls under the FBI's jurisdiction.

No.
I guess even the police aren't the only ones who can label things.
There are all those various associations, organizations, and media outlets too.

It was the same deal with religion.
An article once popped up about how believers were treated on a major US forum.
You might dismiss a specific news outlet, but if it hits one mainstream source, it eventually finds its way to another.

Where exactly is that banned, and what kind of penalties are we talking about?
By the way, it’d be pretty great if people noticed I didn't even use that term! I was just using it for a hypothetical scenario.

Alex Barnes8 said:That kind of terminology is pretty much off-limits now.

Not everything falls under the FBI's jurisdiction.

No.
I guess even the police aren't the only ones who can label things.
There are all those various associations, organizations, and media outlets too.

It was the same deal with religion.
An article once popped up about how believers were treated on a major US forum.
You might dismiss a specific news outlet, but if it hits one mainstream source, it eventually finds its way to another.

Honestly, I’m just gonna wave goodbye to any media outlet that only ever looks at one side of the coin. Not my cup of tea!

placidorca16 said:Dear moderators,
It’s honestly wild how several threads regarding feminism—currently active over in Politics (specifically those regarding "feminist protection of domestic abusers" and various "feminism" discussions)—are completely ignoring blatant sexism, misogyny, and direct violations of the Constitution and federal laws, not to mention international standards. A few users (the original poster, along with felix, bongo, and others, plus the thread starter) are basically just insulting women and their capabilities in general—spreading outright lies about female intelligence and skill as if they were "facts," despite having zero evidence to back any of it up. It's baffling that the mods aren't stepping in, especially since these posts have already been reported.
Does this mean the owners of this forum also endorse the misogyny, sexism, and falsehoods being directed at women?
I’m looking for an official statement from the administration here—this isn't just a breach of forum rules, it’s a violation of the Constitution and the laws of the USA, as well as the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

It’s totally possible that some misogyny and chauvinism just goes completely unpunished around here on this forum.

But look, there's always two sides to every story. You've gotta consider that when certain arguments come up—say, in the form of... Just saw this study coming out of the psychology department over at California State. Really interesting stuff!Look, if you want to push back against a study like that, you’ve got to actually do the work! Challenge the methodology. Tear apart the data. Use actual arguments to question how they even reached their conclusions. You can't just go around throwing shade at California State University and calling it a day. That's not how this works! Total misogyny on this site. Seriously.

Sometimes you’ll be right in the middle of a solid debate—laying out perfectly legitimate points—and some opponent will just dodge everything you said. Instead of actually addressing your arguments, they’ll just brush you off with a cheap shot, calling your logic "militant feminism." It’s such a lazy way to shut down a conversation!
That’s honestly not a great way to handle a discussion about serious topics.
Just my two cents!

Not everything is exactly what the FBI wants.