You guys need to get a grip - Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) Discussion

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

The only criticisms I am seeing in the film is people butthurt because a Mexican girl is the new leader of the movement. [...] you deserve to be called bigots and sexists [...] just you being insecure

There's quite a few other criticisms besides that one. So, nope, it's not the 'only one'.

And regarding this particular criticism, why is it wrong to have it? I haven't seen you made any argument beyond calling people bigots and sexists and insecure and so.

reply

[–] Boricanator (1443) 5 years ago

It’s self-explanatory. It is wrong to hate the movie because the new leader happens to be Mexican girl.

It’s obvious to anyone that is not a sexist bigot.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Fine. If it's obvious, it should be easy for you to elaborate your argument in actual words and reasoning. I'm waiting for it :-)

reply

[–] Boricanator (1443) 5 years ago

I already did.

If you hate the movie because the new leader is a Mexican girl, you are a bigot and a sexist.

It’s not hard to figure out. ;-)

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

It’s self-explanatory. It is wrong to hate the movie because the new leader happens to be Mexican girl.
It’s obvious to anyone that is not a sexist bigot. [...] If you hate the movie because the new leader is a Mexican girl, you are a bigot and a sexist. It’s not hard to figure out.

Aha. So you can't elaborate why you call me bigot and sexist. You state it's "obvious" while you're completely unable to elaborate and give any argument beyond the bold statement.

You just believe. You have faith. You're a good believer, praise the diversity, amen.

That's it.

reply

[–] Boricanator (1443) 5 years ago

There is nothing to elaborate.

Being against a person being a leader because of their ethnicity and gender is bigoted and sexist.

It is a prejudice. It is not based on any rational thought.

It is as simple and obvious as 1 + 1 =2.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4648) 5 years ago

"Being against a person being a leader because of their ethnicity and gender is bigoted and sexist."

Nature is "sexist," leftnut. What of it?

"It is a prejudice. It is not based on any rational thought."

In the case of "ethnicity," it may or may not be based on rational thought. In the case of sex, it is based on rational thought, because chicks aren't leaders unless men allow them to be, and that allowance only happens as a left-wing political tool. It doesn't happen in desperate situations, such as a SHTF scenario. When some cuck writer inserts that sort of fantasy into a work of fiction it lacks verisimilitude, which interrupts the willing suspension of disbelief. It can also irritate people who are smart enough to understand how things work in the real world, and/or people who don't like political pandering, especially in something that's supposed to be for entertainment.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

. . . outstanding post.

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 5 years ago

OP post is totally idiotic. First of all people DO criticise the film for being poorly written and directed. Second of all, how is being against giving women and minorities unrealistic roles in movies for no other reason than a political agenda something that people should be called the worst thing someone can be called ('sexist' or 'racist')? Everyone should be against unrealistic roles. A 90 pound girly gnome being a leader of human resistance is about as realistic as having a morbidly obese individual winning a 100m sprint at the olympics. At least they could have made her the mother of a future leader, but nooooooo. Apparently being just an ethnic minority isn't intersectional enough anymore. What we are witnessing is the natural backlash against Hollywood left wing BS and the only people being butt hurt and the ones like OP. Butthurt against these natural reactions.

reply

[–] Boricanator (1443) 5 years ago

It is unrealistic that a Mexican girl be leader of the resistance? Why is that?

reply

[–] sokar (2098) 5 years ago

It is extremely unrealistic to the point of absurdity that a 90lb 5"1 girl would be the leader and saviour of mankind. If this story even remotely came true no woman of any race would be leader, no woman of any race would fight, that isn't sexist or bigoted, that is basic biology, when the species is on the line, the strongest men would naturally take over and dominate. Again not sexist or bigoted, it is biology.

She could have been a mother of the leader, an advisor, a code breaker, literally anything but no, they wanted to kill off the male lead and make it female. The mexican part is just so blatant a politcal agenda against orange man bad they aren't even trying to hide it.

I think that basicaly answers your question but you are such a soy boy that all you will do is reply by again calling someone sexist and bigoted.

reply

[–] Boricanator (1443) 5 years ago

Since you alleging it is based on biology, could you provide any evidence to support your statement?

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I'll provide you evidence - list for me the great civilizations on earth that were built, ruled, and physically defended by females.

I mean, if women were actually equal physically and mentally, men could not keep them down.

From the military, to the highways, to the patent roles - throughout history, civilizations have been built or conquered, and maintained by men.

It just so happens that white men got really fucking good at it.

Is it fair? No! Nothing in life is fair, and what passes for evolution is little more than the luck of circumstance meeting opportunity.

There's your fucking biology lesson, the real world.

Women are only penetrating male spaces today, because they are the dumb useful easily managed tools of the male ruling class in the re-engineering of society.

But, sure, live in your gender studies fantasy land, Fucktard - the West is being turned into the 3rd World before your very eyes, and you and your children are going to get to live in it.

reply

[–] BillySlater (4241) 5 years ago

Killing off the "hero" of the franchise and replacing him with a Latino girl for the sake of being "woke" is bound to piss people off. Her nationality/race is not really that relevant to viewers though but it just makes it more obvious how they are trying to pander to leftist politics. She could have been a Greta Thunberg clone and fans would have been equally pissed off.

reply

[–] Boricanator (1443) 5 years ago

It’s bound to piss bigots off. That’s about it.

reply

[–] BillySlater (4241) 5 years ago

I´m not pissed off but I understand their POV. I think Ad-hominem also makes your argument look weak.

reply

[–] Boricanator (1443) 5 years ago

Their POV is based on a prejudice. There is no rational thought. They don’t have an argument at all. So, whether I engage in ad-hominems or not is irrelevant since their non-argument is meritless and self-defeating.

reply

[–] BillySlater (4241) 5 years ago

Your argument is just as meritless, since all you can argue is "racism" and "bigotry" when killing off the most important human character of the franchise for the sake of political points is where the anger stems from. I think that´s pretty rational.

reply

[–] Boricanator (1443) 5 years ago

Complaining that they killed the main character: valid complaint, worthy of debate.

Complaining that the new leader is Mexican and a girl: meritless complaint and totally irrational.

The later complaint is something only a bigot and a sexist would complain about. Anyone with common sense would agree.

reply

[–] BillySlater (4241) 5 years ago

I´ve seen very few complaints where someone has complained about the new leader being a Mexican girl without mentioning John Connor being killed off.

reply

[–] Boricanator (1443) 5 years ago

That’s irrelevant. The only complaint should be that Connor was killed.

Emphasizing that the substitute is a Mexican girl is bigotry and sexism no matter how you try to spin it.

Not to forget that the numerous people saying that the film is too woke are also engaging in the same sexism and bigotry.

reply

[–] Boricanator (1443) 5 years ago

Btw, there are a lot of complaints about the new leader being a Mexican girl without mentioning John Connor. You just haven’t been paying attention.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 5 years ago

Wrong, the criticisms seem to be it didn't respect what came before it.

reply

[–] Kowalski (76345) 5 years ago

ONE SMALL CORRECTION....SHE IS COLOMBIAN...NOT MEXICAN.

reply

[–] Jehosaphet (1063) 5 years ago

I don't think they're as much bigots and sexists as they are mentally handicapped. Because its 100% guaranteed that if you cast anyone other than a white, male lead in a movie, these people start scream-crying like little bitches, ohmagod the outrage! Shaking their fist in the air while using their other hand to pat themselves on the back for being able to "see through" this Hollywood "propaganda". Because they're not stupid, you see, do you see how they're not stupid? Not like those lemmings that don't get it, you can't fool these guys and they're going to look for any opportunity to prove that.

Nope, they won't base their review of a movie off its merits, they'll bomb it with 1s, then come here to announce how badly its doing, and that's what Hollywood gets. While what they should get is a damn hobby already...anything at all other than getting their panties bunched over who gets to play pretend for their amusement.

Every person who cries about this issue? I say swoop them all up, put them on a ship to whatever country has people currently being hacked to pieces with machetes and see how they do with learning how to prioritize their expenditure of energy. They're an infestation on discussion forums, their shtick is always the same, rinse and repeat, over and over...and its boring as hell.

reply