MovieChat Forums > Robert E. Lee Discussion > Slave-owning Traitor

Slave-owning Traitor


He deserves contempt.

reply

Some of the Founding Fathers owned slaves.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery-1269536

That was a different time.

Calling confederates "traitors" is historically inaccurate.

He was arguably the best general of the Civil War. He deserves respect.

reply

[deleted]

LOL. They were traitors, they betrayed their agreements and their country. As for slavery, that was imposed by European monarchs. It's no coincidence that Europe stopped the practice once America stopped allowing importation of slaves.

reply

The same way liberals look at slaveowners now will be how future liberals look at owners of gas powered cars today. Times change and what is appropriate changes with it. This man will always be remembered as the most brilliant general of the war dispite if a handful of loud noisy but relatively small minority of liberals complain or not...

reply

Nails it. Who knows what knots they’ll tie themselves in to hate the people of the past. Everyone’s gotta be a victim of something, no matter how easy their lives are.

reply

That seems an unfair statement when the cheapest Electric car is close to $30,000. Nobody but the rich can afford that. Not to mention a lot of states still have coal burning power plants which means more pollution going into the air every time an electric car gets charged. Not to mention for solar to even work we'll have to destroy every forest in the U.S to set up tons and tons of solar panels so we can have enough electricity for everyone. That's not really much better for the environment.

reply

"Close to $30,000" is not an enormous sum for a car in 2022. Plenty of middle-class people own cars in that price range. Plus, there's always the used market.

I have no issue with the rest of your statement.

reply

Dumb statement. You go pricing for a used car lately? Plus electric cars cost much more $30,000 dollars. Get in the real world.

reply

I was only responding to his statement that "only the rich" can afford a car that is "close to $30,000."

reply

I'm more saying that poorer people who have to buy used cars aren't going to be able to afford an electric car for at least a few decades from now. Basically if within 10 years we stop the production and sale of gas cars only the most well off people are going to be able to afford a car. Poor people won't be able to afford one. That especially seems pretty contradictory on the party that boasts about wanting to help poor people.

reply

I'm sure that's true. Before we can go all electric, then electric cars will need to be down to the prices of any other cars, with entry-level models at around $15K and a decent used one for $4K.

That's not to mention the fact that range and charging times will have to be improved considerably.

reply

And the infrastructure improved A LOT. And generation/distribution.

California: we will phase out the sales of gas powered cars by 2030.
Also California: please don't charge your EVs because the electrical grid will burn down and die a gruesome death.

reply

You realize that you don’t have to pay for the entire car all at once, right? And even if you did, $30,000 isn’t an unattainable sum of money in 2022.

reply

You are missing my point. Poorer people can't afford to spend more than $500 to $1,000 on a car at once. An electric car will never be that cheap. A poorer person can't afford to spend an extra $300 a month paying for an electric car.


Also from what I've heard electric cars take 3 hours to charge making long distance traveling harder. I have a sister, brother in law, a nephew, and 5 nieces who live in Iowa and if we get rid of gas cars, it'll take them 12 hours to drive here from there.

Basically what I am saying is we are not there technology wise to make electric cars as energy effecient as gas cars yet.

reply

I'm not rich, but I wrote a check for a $30,000 new truck back in 2016. I think you're completely out of touch if you're going to characterize the rich as being people who can afford a $30,000 vehicle. The middle class like me are capable of saving their wages. I'm a GS-11 employee of a shipyard.

An EV getting power from a coal plant is still less polluting than a gasoline car. This is because a coal plant has emission control equipment and the EV motor is about 90% efficient whereas a gas car tops out at about 35%.

People who go on and on about how charging an EV from a coal fired plant is more polluting just keep on exposing how ignorant they are.

Solar is working now; no one says it is ever intended to supply all of our power needs. If we erected enough panels to do 100% of the job, they might cover about 1% of the USA surface area. The USA has 3,796,742 square miles of surface area, about 1/3 of that is forested.

Go be stupid somewhere else, we're all full here.

https://inovateus.com/how-many-square-miles-of-solar-panels-would-it-take-to-power-the-u-s-its-smaller-than-you-think/

reply

I'm trying to imagine the staggering hubris it takes to look at the archive of human experience and history, so massive it is unmasterable in a thousand lifetimes, and think: “Well, they were all immoral compared to me”.

reply

I never owned slaves or killed Indians, so......you're right.

reply


Yes, but what will people think of you and me two hundred years from now? Someone will demand that your well deserved statue be removed because it will violate some future morality that we are not aware of today.

reply

BINGO!

reply

Plenty of people in Robert E. Lee's day were aware of how immoral slavery was.

reply

No doubt, but let's take a few subjects today that many people think are immoral and no one is demanding cancellation yet. Abortion is one, eating meat is another, and how about "owning" another living creature like a dog, cat, bird, etc.?

You may think my third example is crazy but you never know what another 100 years will bring. There was a time when circuses were not controversial but now they've mostly shut down. Zoos still exist but those are now under fire. Both were part of daily life in America and were considered wholesome. Things change. There may come a day when owning any animal as a pet might be considered immoral.

Getting back to my first example, there are statues of Barack Obama, but he is both a meat eater and supports abortion. I don't think eating meat is immoral but I do think ending a human life in eutero is. A hundred years from now, the consensus might agree with me, OR, they may take down *my* statue for going against a woman's right to aborting her child. Time will tell.

Regarding Lee, virtually no one put up a fuss back when his statues were erected which is the whole point - times change.

reply

Times changed because the primitive mindset that romanticizes the Confederacy has been outnumbered by more enlightened folk. THIS IS A GOOD THING. Your examples of abortion, eating meat and owning pets are examples of things that are rational to value (yes, even abortion, so long as it's not done for irrational reasons, but then that applies to everything), and the ones who consider them immoral are lunatics who I hope never gain the majority.

reply


..and the ones who consider them immoral are lunatics who I hope never gain the majority.


But they might, and that's the point. The policies and discussions themselves are unimportant.

reply

Right, so because the culture might get overrun by morons someday, we have to keep up statues to a general who led an unjust insurrection?? I don't follow you.

reply


No, you aren't following at all.

reply

Most can't follow what you are saying and that is part of the problem itself.

reply

Is it your view that humanity is becomes more and more morally "enlightened" as time goes on?

It seems to me that we are rapidly going straight into the moral gutter. While I do think that we have learned better about some things, in other areas man's moral sense--particularly here in the western world--is in rapid decline.

reply

Exactly right.

reply

Let's be honest. He's not getting a statue.

reply

But do you eat hamburgers? There are certainly people in the world who would call you a literal murderer for doing so.

reply

yeah, but a LOT of people in those times did.

Some people today still do, but you don't see too concerned about that. Ah, they are not white Americans so there's no problem there.

reply

You’re asking the lemmings of the left to think, at that point you have completely lost them.

reply

I am Conservative, and I consider Robert E Lee to be a traitor.

reply

I am also one and consider him to be an officer, a gentleman and a great man.



reply


The U.S. Civil War wasn't really a Civil War at all. For all his warts, Lee was not trying to bring about the end of the U.S, take it over, or in any way help other nations to do so - he and his kind were trying to peacefully leave the Union and co-exist with it.

Wrong yes but I think something less than traitorous.

reply

It’s inaccurate because at the time people considered the states more like autonomous regions that chose to join the union, rather than a single country with different areas. Robert E. Lee felt more loyalty to his home state, than the country as a whole.

But yeah there was no betrayal, they succeeded peacefully and legally. The north’s denial of the succession was much more dubious. But of course the winners write the history books.

reply

I think we would be a better nation today if we had preserved that strong sense of individual states' autonomy and rights. The way the federal government has taken control of the nation is scandalous.

reply

What if he was a "traitor" to the Confederacy? Would he then not be a traitor?

reply

I'm sick of all this "slave owner" crap. It was a different time back then; Slavery wasn't right, but it was the social norm back then.

Men and women used to eat insects, worms, and raw meat. But then we discovered fire and farms.
The Cowboys and Indians fought for their land. But then we formed governments and Land offices.
Slavery used to be acceptable. But the industrial revolution helped put an end to that.

Stop condemning our forefathers based on today's social norms and today's values. They didn't exist back then. History and mankind (or do I have to say man and womenkind) evolve. Deal with it.

reply

Well said.

reply

You would not say this if you were in different shoes.

reply

Sure I would.

reply

No you would not. You see you have a sensitive trigger. Anytime a movie has ideology you do not agree with you scream woke! The batman had a white straight main hero as the lead, yet you claim it hates white people and places them in a bad light simply because there is a white villain. With you being this sensitive about something like that you expect me to believe you would feel this way if you were black? Yeah I got a bridge to sell you.

reply

War's been over for over a hundred and fifty years. Walk it off.

reply

Okay then do not see movies that are against your ideology. No one is forcing you to watch them. Sit home and sleep it off.

reply

YOu see no difference between complaining about something from 150 years ago and something that is happening in the near future? REally?

Or, are you just a shit talker?

Rhetorical question. You are a shit talker.

reply

Are you being forced to watch films? Do you have less rights than anyone else watching a film? A world of difference between what you are complaining about vs what blacks dealt with back then.

No I am a truth teller. Again if you feel so strongly why do you willingly support people who hate you?

reply

Because slavery happened in the distant past, I'm not allowed to complain about shitty movies today?

You just talk shit.

reply

Who said you were not allowed to complain about films today? However if you know it is not going to have your political ideology why support it? You openly said that they are racist against your race. So wouldn't that make you a moron for giving that group money? I do not give money to people who hate my kind.

reply

You're kind of not talking about Lee much at all. Which seems to be a standard for you.

Mine point stands. 150 years. Walk it off.

reply

Concession noted. Notice once you are against the wall you say my point stands. My point stands do not see the movie and sleep it off.

reply

My point was it was stupid of you to compare slavery from over 150 years ago to complainting about movies today.

Your claim of a "consession' is just you being a shit talker.

reply

And it is stupid to act like you would feel exactly the same in a different set of shoes. You get upset over something in a film. Yet you expect me to believe you would just glance past that type of thing if you were black. Yeah no... I was not born yesterday.

reply

I once teased a Canadian about his country kicking our ass in the War of 1812.

It was a JOKE. You people today? You do the same type of shit, and you're dead fucking serious.

You are just trying to generate division and hate.

reply

Even if I take what you say at face value that does nothing to take away from my point. You got upset over a white guy being called a colonizer in Black Panther. I honestly feel it is your agenda to spread hatred. I never said a word about the whitewashing which occurred in films because I did not care. I did not care Whistler was race swapped in Blade because it has no bearing on the story. Your camp does not have this mindset. Even if the race is not essential you guys blow a gasket if it is not portrayed the typical way you are used to seeing. Yet I am the one shaking the jar full of ants to eat one another? Nice reverse psychology there bro.

Yet you tell me to walk it off. Okay then sleep off the race swaps in Hollywood.

reply

The woke shit is happending TODAY. The Civil War was a hundred and fifty years ago, long before you were born.

That's my point, which you refuse to address. Stop your whining, and walk it off.

reply

Someone is spreading an ideology you disagree with. You are not being enslaved, or denied the right to vote etc. Not all wokeness is a bad thing. You know the definition of woke correct?

reply

In context of this site, my Entertainment is being negatively impacted and more...generally, I am unhappy about the discrimination facing whites, men, and white men, in teh pursuit of "diversity" or some such woke shit.

So, real and current effects.

reply

It is not your entertainment. You or I do not own Hollywood you choose what you watch. If you dislike what is going on then do not go and see it. That is how I solve my problem. With streaming you have access to all kinds of entertainment. No one is forcing you to watch anything. Now more than ever we have access to so much no one is starved for entertainment. There exist good movies today you might be looking in the wrong areas.

How are whites being discriminated against in Hollywood when they have the majority of the roles?

I do not agree with your stance on the topic. So to me the discrimination you are talking about I feel is not real. I think that when you have had dominion over people for a long time equality feels like oppression to you.

reply

1. The only reason these intellectual properties have value, is because of the pre-existing fan base, composed of people like me.

Thus, it is "my" Entertainment.

2. When they decide that they want more "diversity" and thus will race flip a character, and thus bar all white actors/actresses from consideration, those people are being discriminated against. D'uh.

3. Dominion? LOL. i've never had "dominion" over anyone. Peddle that shit somewhere else.

reply

Wrong there are other people which make up that fan base as well. Even leftist people enjoy these characters also. It is composed of many people who enjoy these character not just people like you. So no it is not just your entertainment. You act as if you funded all the projects yourself. No other people see this stuff also.

Where is your proof this happened. I want proof. Now provide it. Then that means anytime a character was whitewashed that blacks were discriminated against as well correct? Going off your logic here. Since blacks were denied a role they could have gotten where the role got whitewashed. So that means Tiger Lily in Pan was a race swap and was discrimination.

I was referring to your camp as a whole not you specifically.

reply

1. I am aware of how groups work.

2. Plenty of people openly stating their intent to "increase diversity". And tehn we see it happen. IF you can't connect those dots, that is a you problem.

3. No group I am part of, has had "Dominion" over anyone since before I was born. Other than "humans over the Earth".

reply

Then do not act as if you are the only one who funded the films. Many did not just you or your group.

So what you want is for whites to keep holding onto the majority of roles in Hollywood? Even with the increase of diversity whites still hold the majority. So no increase in diversity and whites keep the majority is that what you want? The whitewashing of Whistler is fine. We have to accept the table scraps we were getting and shut our mouth and accept it?

Except for Hollywood right?

reply

1. I said nothing of funding.

2. I stated my complaint(s). Address them or not. I said nothing of "majority of roles".

3. No group I am part of has "Dominon" over Hollywood.

reply

You said people like me are the reason these characters get funded. You aid the only reason these character exist is because of the preexisting fanbase composed of people like me. That is you implying you guys are the only ones who support these characters financially.

I did. So is your solution there be no increase in diversity then?

Yeah whites do. That is a lie.

reply

1. i said that people like me are why those IPs have value. Stop tryihng to tell me what I said, and address teh point. Or not.

2. My solution is to make creative decision based on valid creative decisions, not politics or racism.

3. Whites do not have Dominon over Hollywood.

reply

So other people are not the reason those properties have value also? Your group is the only thing which makes it have value?

So when I ask you for proof it is a dick move we already did that. So I am not allowed to ask for proof. So it is up to you to decide when a decision is made on politics or racism then correct?

Yes they do.

reply

1. Correct.

2. Yes, when you ask for "proof" when I am not in a position to question the people personally, it is a dick move.

3. Nice unsupported assertion. Meanwhile in the real world, every major studio has stated policies of diversity, not white dominance.

reply

Nope you are wrong. People who are left leaning also support those properties also. You are ignorant if you think only right wing people supported those properties financially.

That's why I don't make claims I can't prove. It opens you up to looking foolish.

Kind of like how you asserted only right wing people like you supported those properties? Where is your proof of that assertion? Or is that a dick move also?

reply

1. I said nothing of right wing.

2. This is a movie discussion forum. We discuss movies without having access to the people being discussed. Only you find this wrong.

3. I asserted no such thing. That was you making up shit.

reply

Then what group you referring to? A large portion of people pay for these heroes. So which group specifically?

If you don't have access to them then why should we operate off of assumptions and generalizations?

I asked you the question and you said correct.

reply

1. As I already said, the pre-existing fanbase. That you got from taht to "right wing" is something wrong with you.

2. False choice Logical fallacy.

3. Your question referred to my previous point about being the pre-existing fanbase.

reply

The preexisting fanbase is made of lots of people. You just proved my point. So it is not just your entertainment it is other people's as well.

Nope it is the one you are wanting me to accept.

Which the preexisting fanbase is made up of lots of people not just people like you.

reply

The outrage from the various fanbases, suggesting otherwise.

reply

Which outrage you referring to? With characters like Batman the majority of people are happy with the film. Avengers Endgame which you complained about was obviously a box office hit.

reply

You know which outrage I am speaking of. Please stop playing stupid as a dogding tactic.

reply

Funny you want to only point to the cases where the outrage affected the box office numbers. Since you cherry picked I figured I could as well.

reply

I said nothing of box office numbers. You lose.

reply

Then what are you referring to? Does every movie against your ideology or that is woke fail?

reply

no

reply

So then which ones prove your point?

reply

Walk it off, I love it. Finally someone who agrees with me!

reply

Keep that same energy when it comes to your group being mistreated as well.

reply

Dude. You just ignored the primary point. That it was ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS AGO.

Would you like to address that? Or are you just a troll boi?

reply

Um are you serious? Look at all your posts about how white men are targeted. You openly said white people are discriminated against in America. You said Black Panther was racist against whites. You said the the Batman was racist against whites and targeted your political ideology. You adopt the us vs them mentality you openly admitted it. Are you seriously asking this question?

reply

Correct, I complain about peopole TODAY, being treated badly, compared to whining about some shit that happened to other people over a HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS ago.

Do you realize how dumb you are looking, when you pretend to miss that point?

America as a whole, kissed and made up, long before our grandparents were born.

You are a shit talker.

reply

Then this leads into my point which you can't come against. If you know a specific group is treating people badly why do you willingly support them by giving them money? Put your money where you mouth is. If you are going to willingly support people who mistreat people then accept the results. I do not give money to people that mistreat people. Therefore I practice what I preach. You look silly complaining about a group mistreating people while willingly giving them money to do so.

I am not missing the point. First of all I do not believe you are being mistreated. I have a hard time believing that when you have the majority of roles and dominion over most roles in Hollywood. There are more white actors and white heroes than any other race. This is fact and indisputable.

No because we also had the civil rights movement long after Lee passed away. Had everything been good after his death you would have a point but things were not.

Nope I am a truth teller.

reply

The issue of fans loving an intellectual property, such as say, Marvel Comics, while being unhappy with the woke shit being shoved into it, by people like you, is a point worthy of discussion.

But kind of off topic here. This thread is about people like you whining about shit that happened to other people long before you were born.


reply

It is but then put your money where your mouth is. Do not willingly give them money and expect the results to change. You want change then be the change you want to see in the world. Also nice insult there. I do not write comics nor do I make films. People like me want a good story being told. I do not get all bent out of shape when a film does not echo my political ideology. That would be you and your camp. Stay in your echo chamber.

To simply want people to shrug off the past is not a good thing. I do not begrudge anybody today for stuff that happened years ago. I do not judge someone for something their parent did. I judge people as individuals. However to not acknowledge the wrongdoings of the past is not doing anyone any favors. To sugar coat history is to not improve. I do not think the world owes me anything I just want equal treatment nothing more nothing less. Would you tell a Holocaust survivor to walk something off? What about the Holocaust survivors kid?

reply

1. If you care about the woke Hollywood issue, perhaps you should start a thread on it. I would be happy to discuss it at length there.

2. Slavery has been "acknowledged" plenty. We are past that to something else. This looks more like bullying behavior.

reply

Slavery has also been downplayed by many. Which is why it gets brought up still. When you downplay it, it can create a triggered response. Also okay your wish is my command. I created a thread just for you.

https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/639f2a949144247fa0292590/The-woke-outrage-about-Hollywood

reply

Any time someone downplays slavery, you are welcome to call them on it.

Meanwhile back on topic, the country as a whole, kissed and made up long before you were born. Walk it off.

reply

And I have. You simply telling someone to walk it off is rather insensitive.

And Whites still have the majority of roles in Hollywood. No one is harming you, you still have rights to vote and are not being enslaved. Sleep it off.

reply

No, them giving me grief about a long dead issue, is them being rude. At best.

And your support of discrimination against white individuals is you being a bad person.

reply

No one is giving you grief about it. We are simply calling out your insensitivity. Would you tell the child of a Holocaust victim to walk it off because it was in the past?

I do not support discrimination against whites I just do not see it where you are trying to apply it. I do not agree with your view of what discrimination is.

reply

1. My dad and most of his brothers fought in WWII. If the child in question is giving ME grief about it, for some reason, he can go fuck himself.

2. Yeah, just because a group of rich assholes openly state that tey are going to discriminate in favor of not white people and then you see them do it, doesn't mean it was discrimination AGAINST white people. LOL!!

reply

No one is giving you grief once again. We are calling out your insensitivity. Where did I blame you for racist things happening in the past?

Giving a group which is underrepresented more opportunities does not mean you are discriminating against white people. That is like saying because you are offering homeless people shelter you are discriminating against rich people for having money. Rich people have money already therefore why would they need assistance from a homeless shelter?

reply

1. You are giving me grief right now, while denying it. Typical.

2. You have a role that would normally be for a white actor/actress, and you state that for political reasons, ie diversity, that you are giving it to an "underrepresented group" you are discriminating against whites.

reply

About your insensitivity yes not about past transgressions. Nice try.

So then that also means Tiger Lily casting in Pan was a discrimination move correct? Pretty bad when you give a role to a white actress that was made for a native American. So not only is that discrimination you are discriminating against someone who is in the minority in Hollywood in favor of the majority in Hollywood. That is wrong correct? Who says those roles of which you are talking about were specifically designed for whites? You are just used to seeing them portrayed that way. Catwoman has been portrayed as different races before. Nothing states she has to be white.

reply

1. The topic is Gen Lee and you are giving me grief because of shit that occurred 150 years ago.

2. Are you admitting that discriminating in favor of minorities means discriminating against whites? Because your response seems to imply a "Yes, But" defense.

reply

Nope I'm giving you grief about insensitivity about Gen Lee. Nice try. Not about history but your insensitivity.

You never proved those roles were originally supposed to be white. Once you can prove those roles were supposed to be white then you have a case. Once I see a black Abe Lincoln historical piece you can get back to me.

reply

1. Bullshit.

2. If you state you are going to discriminate in favor of minorities, that means you will be discriminating against whites.

reply

Nope true.

Again so by saying we want to be more diverse that is by default discrimination? What if white people are still given roles in the film?

reply

1. False.

2. Don't pretend to restate my statement, and change it. Address what I said. Here it is again.

If you state you are going to discriminate in favor of minorities, that means you will be discriminating against whites.

reply

True.

Right after you address the point in the thread I created. Notice how you ran away from that conversation. You could not come against it therefore you evade it. Nice tactic.

Also no one stated they were discriminating against whites they said minorities would be given more roles than before. So then what is your solution? Keep Hollywood the same? Make sure that minorities know their place?

reply

How do you give a role to a minority based on race, without NOT giving that role to a white, based on race?

And the ending of your post, with the flame bait, is just you being a troll boi.

reply

Who says they are giving a role to a minority based on race? Maybe minorities are just getting more opportunities than they would have in the past? What if they give both races a chance where as before they only gave one a chance? By your logic discrimination happened against minorities for Catwoman since they only wanted a white actress for Catwoman in the past. That is discriminating against black people.

reply

Where the auditions for Catwoman open to all races?

reply

Were the auditions for Catwoman open to all races when they held auditions for The Dark Knight Rises? See here is the difference between you and me. If they were looking for a white Catwoman/Selina Kyle in The Dark Knight Rises it does not bother me. I do not consider that discrimination. However notice how if they want a person of color for Catwoman/Selina Kyle in the Batman notice how you view it as discrimination? If that is the case then both films are guilty of discrimination. Thing is you only want to lob the discrimination label at the Batman and not The Dark Knight Rises. It is either one or the other you do not get to have it both ways.

It is up to what the artist wants for the role. If you are trying to emulate a specific comic book appearance then you are obviously going to cast closest to that comic. I would say the same thing if it were reversed. You would not though.

reply

Are you admitting that discriminating in favor of minoriteis means discriminatinga against whites?

reply

Nope because that is not what is taking place. If I grant that then that means anytime a black actor is not given a chance at a role they are also being discriminated against as well. This goes both ways. Sure you want to to apply this logic?

reply

jDude. YOu're not making sense. You are denying what our whole society claims it is doing, and constantly celebrates doing.

reply

You claim discrimination against white people. Yet you want to deny that same logic you use when it is done to other races. You are not making sense man.

reply

You are using different logic for opposite situations and claiming it is the same. You lose.

reply

Nope I am applying your deluded logic and it makes you look ignorant. I win scoreboard me 18 you 0.

reply

No, you are not.

reply

you having another mental breakdown?

reply

"...rather insensitive."

What would you do if General Ulysses S. Grant ordered you to charge the confederates at Vicksburg?

Would you say "General Grant, that is rather insensitive. I choose not to participate."

Or if General Robert E. Lee ordered you to charge enemy positions at Chancellorsville?

Would you say "General Grant, that is rather insensitive. I choose not to participate."

Stick to movies moviefanatic. Watching movies is what you do best.

Robert E. Lee was a great general.

reply

The discussion is not about whether he was a great general. It is about being insensitive to people when you are not in their shoes. Your point about him being a good general is irrelevant and therefore is dismissed.

reply

"...is dismissed."

What would you do if General Ulysses S. Grant ordered you to charge the confederates at Vicksburg?

Or if General Robert E. Lee ordered you to charge enemy positions at Chancellorsville?

Would you say "That is rather insensitive General. I choose not to participate. Am I dismissed?"

You would not have been dismissed. They didn't have movies to watch in the 1860's.

Robert E. Lee was a great general and a great man. Anyone who says otherwise does not understand the history of the Civil War.

reply

You are now placed on ignore.

reply

You are not reading my posts. That gives you more time to watch movies.

Watch movies.

reply

So then answer the question. If there were no auditions allowed for black women for Catwoman in the Dark Knight Rises is that discrimination against black actresses?

reply

Of course not. That's is a question that is so stupid, that I find it hard to credit that you are serious.

reply

Okay so why is it discrimination against whites if they want a black woman to play their interpretation of Catwoman/Selina Kyle?

reply

You seem to be trying to bury your conclusion as a premise, ie that this is about their "interpretation of catwoman" and not becauase of their political agenda.

reply

Answer my question. See you will not do it. You know it debunks your point.

I do not believe there is a political agenda with the casting of Kravitz. I believe it was an artistic creative decision. She can be a different race without it being political. I know this is a hard thing for a person like you to grasp.

reply

Hilarious, you attack me for not answering then attack my answer.


Choose one or the other.

reply

No you did not answer the question. Since it is not discrimination against blacks if they did not allow them to audition for Catwoman in the Dark Knight Rises that means it is not discrimination against whites for not letting them audition for Catwoman in The Batman correct? You openly said it is not discrimination against blacks in the Dark Knight Rises so then it is not discrimination against whites in the Batman. Argue against that I dare you to try.

reply

What a weirdo. YOu claim I did not answer, then you address my answer.


Admit that I answered, or I will not address your attempt at rebuttal to my answer.

Seriously, wtf is wrong with you?

reply

You answered part of the question which was one way. You answered and said no it is not discriminating against blacks. You would not answer if you applied that same logic if it would be discriminating against whites.

reply

My position has clearly been about the REASON for the decision.

That you look at two cases of actions, and refuse to consider differences of motivation, and insist the actions are the same,

makes no sense.

Unless.... you are afraid to honestly address my argument because you know I am right and you are wrong.

reply

Nope it is not. This is your logic anytime a character is race swapped from white to another race it is political. If it is swapped from something else to white you say nothing. Which is why I had to bring Tiger Lily in the movie Pan and you got all quiet.

Discrimination is discrimination. If whites are being discriminated against because they were not allowed to audition for a role then the same applies to black people not allowed to audition for a role. Catwoman's race is not essential to the character. If this were Abraham Lincoln you would have a case but unfortunately for you it does not apply here.

reply

Context and motive matters. Your insistance otherwise, is just you stonewalling.

I am fine with whites not being allowed to audition for say, BLACK PANTHER, or FALCON, or Luke Cage.

FOr a few examples off the top of my head. Which disproves your current position.

reply

It does but then you need to prove motive, not just lob an assertion, generlization or an assumption. That is not grounds for me to believe you sorry.

Once again is Catwoman's race essential to her character? No it is not! A character such as Mulan's race is an essential aspect to her character. She is fictional but clearly it is based on China and deals with a lot of the historical aspects of Chinese culture and she comes from a Chinese family. The setting is in China. Her race is essential. If it was Abraham Lincoln of course he needs to be white obviously.

You called Black Panther a racist film so you lost grounds on that also.

reply


Essential is irrelevant to motive.

Why do you keep bringing it up, when we have gone over that many times?

Cause it looks like the type of shit a troll would do.

reply

Nope in my book it is completely relevant. I disagree.

reply

If a director decides to disscriminate against whites for a role, based on anti-white racism, that is something that happens, regradless of whether or not race is "essensial" to the character.


Your denial of this, is irrational.

reply

Not in the case of Catwoman. Since they can not allow black actresses to audition for Catwoman in the Dark Knight Rises they are free to do that with the Batman when it comes to white actresses. Nothing states that Catwoman must be white.

I will call out discrimination against whites where it applies but in the case of Catwoman in the Batman is does not apply.

reply

Can discrimination occurr, if race is not essensial to the role or job?


reply

Yep. However this does not mean it is occurring where you attempting to apply it. Why is it okay for them to deny black actresses auditions for Selina Kyle/Catwoman in the Dark Knight Rises? It is not discrimination against blacks according to you. Yet in the Batman if they deny white actresses auditions for Selina Kyle/Catwoman it is discrimination against whites. Backwards logic there. Also guess what there is a story reason even beyond the comic for her to be black.

Selina Kyle is known for being poor and a thief correct? Black people are on average more poor than white people are. There is your story reason to make her black.

reply

Why is it ok to deny black acctresses auditions for catwoman in Dark Knight Rises, while is was wrong to deny white actresses in The Batman?

Because creative reasons are valid for creative decisions, while political ones are not.

reply

Lol and you just proved my point. If you deny a black actress an audition for Catwoman/Selina Kyle in The Dark Knight Rises it can't be bigoted, racist or for a political reason. It is for a creative one. Therefore you get a free pass. What if I feel it was for a racist reason? Or even a political one?

If you deny white actresses auditions it can't be for a creative decision it has to be a political one. Nice double standard there.

reply

There is a massive and long standing political movement or agenda, that pushes for increased "representation" of "traditionally underrepresenated groups" in such roles.

There is no such motive to do that for white actresses.


Thus,considerint the difference in potential motives, while judging the two situations, is completely called for.


Your denial of this makes no sense, and you have done nothing to explain it.

reply

Whites are the majority. Is it bad that minorities want more representation when they have been victims of being underrepresented in the past? Funny why does no one ever mention how Whistler was race swapped? Also Tiger Lily in Pan. That role was given to a white actress when it should have gone to a native American actress. Surely that was not a creative decision correct? Was that wrong?

Because they are the majority.

However racism exists and always will. So one can call into question someone's motives for denying an actor of specific race for a role where nothing states that role has to be white.

I have explained you just disagree. See you want to claim no racism exists in Hollywood except for against whites. That is an ignorant assumption. Racism can exist at anytime and anyplace.

reply

Old School anti-minority racism, does still "exist".

BUt it is massively marginalized force and NOT the stated goal or policy of every major studio, or employer in the country, like "diversity" and such shit is.

Pretending the two are equal, is absurd.

reply

That does not mean racism does not exist.

Crying victim when you are the majority and hold most the power is also absurd.

reply

It is an unlikely motive for a modern woke hollywood producer.

Being part of the majority does not mean you cannot be the victim of discrimination.

Implying that it does, is senseless.

reply

According to you. I do not believe you. Mel Gibson still works in Hollywood after all. He has made some um lets just say no very nice remarks about people....

I did not say that but I do not believe you are as discriminated against as you claim. I mean you called Black Panther racist for goodness sakes.

Black Panther is not a racist film. Stop the paranoia.

reply

You really claiming to be unaware of how racial equality for blacks have been the national bi-partisan consensus for generations? lol!!

reply

Does Mel Gibson still work in Hollywood? Has he made some not so nice remarks about races before?

reply

Christopher Nolan was director of Dark Knight Rises. I've heard nothing from him or his work to hint at such non-conformity.

reply

I have heard no such thing about Matt Reeves. See I can play this game as well. Someone can liberal and left wing and not discriminate against whites also.

reply

Really? His work in The Batman has a lot of woke elements.

reply

I disagree with a lot of things you call woke. The main hero being a heterosexual white male makes me question you claiming it to be so woke. Also the fact that you called Black Panther a racist film made your credibility take a shot. Your film analysis also is suspect as well. You said the fact that Batman not having an effect on crime is against his character. This is false because comics, cartoons and other media using Batman go over these same plot beats.

reply

I like the way that you claim that you disagree with a lot of the things I call woke, and then fail to mention any of them, let alone explain any reason why or how you disagree.


That shows that you are not only wrong, but that you know it.


reply

Um I told you why I disagreed. The main hero is a heterosexual white male. Black Panther you called racist simply because they used oppression as a storytelling device. That is like saying the X-men is racist because it used the Holocaust as a storytelling device. You then claimed Tchalla and Killmonger agreed with each other which made you look more ignorant. Killmonger believed in killing and oppressing Tchalla did not. He risked his life for the white folks where as Killmonger wanted to kill them. Having a young successful black mayor is not woke either. Candace Owens who you adore is a young successful political figure who happens to be black. Is she woke? I addressed your points you are just too ignorant to debunk my claims.

You are wrong and you know it. My point stands.

reply

Dude. Stop being an asshole. THIS is the only part of your reply that is actually relvant to my post.


Um I told you why I disagreed. The main hero is a heterosexual white male.


And even it is so...wrong that I didn't realize how you thought it was connected.

Showing ONE role that was not changed for political motives, does not mean that other, significant portions of the movie were effected by political agenda.


reply

Okay then do not say I didn't give my reasons why I disagreed. So can you prove Kravitz and Gordon were casted for political reasons? Not assertions or generalizations I want proof. Also the answer you gave was false when I asked how you cast Kravitz without it being an issue. You said the director should assure fans it's not political. You honestly think that would work?

I already debunked your Gordon claim also. You do realize Oldman's Gordon in Batman Begins strongly resembles the Gordon in the Year one comic. Reeves said his film was influenced by that comic book. Catwoman in Year one had never been emulated. Therefore doing that style of Catwoman made sense it was different. Gordon I feel was changed for the sake of change because you run the risk of copying Oldman's Gordon if you attempt to emulate Year one's version again. It's similar to why I'm glad we didn't see his parents get killed in the alley we have seen it a billion times. There you go I gave plausible reasons as to why there was a switch. I don't care if you agree it's still a point I made.

reply

1.As I explained, it was so lame, that I did not follow your logic.

2. Prove? Only an asshole asks for PROOF, of another man's motives. EVIDENCE? CONVINCING ARGUMENTS? Those are reasonable requests.

3. You expressed disagreement. That is not "debunking".

4. Every change, "just happens" to be in a direction that could also be woke, what a coincidence. NOT. You are looking at trees and pretendign to not know what a forest is.

5. They are not plausible, not when taken TOGETHER, and with the other shit, AND considering the environment.

reply

Just because you did not follow the logic does it mean it is wrong. You not following it I can chock up to being closed minded or willfully ignorant.

Nope proof is a reasonable request to ask for. Even if I ask for evidence I can list evidence to the contrary of what you are claiming. I have provided evidence that supports my claim as well. I raised reasonable doubt once I brought up the Year One comic. Notice you can't come against that. None of your arguments are convincing it all boils down to assumptions and generalizations.

Nope not just disagreement I went into detail as to why your logic is ignorant. Also guess what your point gets totally debunked here. You do know Alicia Vikander auditioned for the role of Catwoman in the Batman? So looks like white women were not denied the audition after all... So now I wonder if any black actresses auditioned for the role of Catwoman in the Dark Knight Rises?

I gave a logical explanation why they chose to make Catwoman black. In the Year One comic she was not white and Kravitz looks like that comic took interpretation. Gary Oldman's Gordon looks like the Year one version of Gordon. Therefore if you attempt to emulate that again you will mimic his Gordon and you want to avoid repeating things as an artist. If you do not avoid that you run the risk of cloning things like how the Disney Star Wars turned out.

Nope it is plausible. In my book it is plausible. I gave you She Hulk and Ghostbusters 2016. I am not granting you leeway on this one. The Batman has no agenda and whites are not being discriminated against in the film. Kind of ironic how you do not call Blade a racist film for what they did to Whistler. Seems like you are the one deep into this agenda. Pan should also be called a racist film by you funny thing is you go quiet. I love this though keep embarrassing yourself. This is turning into a highlight reel.

reply

1. Now you are just talking in stupid circles. Dismissed.

2. "Proof" on another man's internal motives, is a dick thing to demand. Your denial of this clear truth is you being dishonest.

3. YOu stating "debunked" is you gaslighting.

4. "In your book" is just you talking shit.


5, In the real world, PRO-MINORITY DISCRIMINATION, is the stated policy and goals of our nation for generations, ESPECIALLY woke shitholes like Hollywood. Your denial is just you being, at best, ignorant and foolish.

reply

No you just can't comprehend the logic. Simply because you are too dense to comprehend something does it mean it is illogical.

Nope in my book proof is a reasonable request. Only people who have no argument or facts think this way. Even your evidence and arguments were weak honestly.

Not when I actually debunk the claim. I just proved a white actress auditioned for Catwoman in the Batman. So looks like whites were not being discriminated against like you tried to claim.

No it is me disagreeing with you.

Nope you just want to attribute anything that disagrees with your political ideology as woke. To a hammer everything looks like a nail.

reply

Stonewalling and gaslighting is all you have.

Meanwhile in the real world, THis country has had publicly stated goals of discriminating in favor of "traditionally advantaged minorities" for generations.

And Hollywood is the Capital of the Woketards, who want to turn that up to eleven.

Your denial of this reality is just you being a troll.

reply

So you are going to dismiss the fact that a white woman auditioned for Catwoman in the Batman lol. Nice evading my point which contradicts your original point. Alicia Vikander is a white woman who auditioned for that role. So um...No stonewalling here. You are the one stonewalling by not addressing this point. Evasion is the only thing you got left.

The beautiful thing is you will keep lining these people's pockets with your personal hard earned money. So get used to it.

reply

The way you insist on ignoring the whole, to focus down on small factors, AS THOUGH THEY EXIST ALONE,

is you being a dishonest troll.

There is no possibility of anything resembeling serious and/or honest discussion with you, while you play that game.

reply

Then why are you not addressing the fact that a white woman was allowed to audition? You originally claimed white women were not allowed to audition. Were you wrong or you going to not be a man and refuse to man up?

You address my points and I will address yours. I answered your question now answer mine. I will give you first question. Go ahead. You have the floor. Ask the first question and I will answer.

reply

I did not claim it, I asked a question, with an if.

You are a fool walking in a forest, arguing that each tree, is, "in your book" not a tree, because needles are really leaves or some such stupid shit, and becasue you were able to form your disagreement as a counter point, you just pretend it's a valid point, which it often is not, and then declare the idea it is a tree, "debunked".

Meanwhile in reality, you are walking though a fucking FOREST.




reply

Even so this answers the question you had because Alicia Vikander auditioned for the role. So there is no if. A white actress got to audition for the part. Therefore discrimination against whites never took place. So your question was answered.

Not the same thing. I have created a reasonable doubt to your argument and you do not like it. Like I said since Vikander got to audition for the role that debunks your discrimination diatribe.

reply

It does not answer my question. And more to the point, there are two possibilities here.

1. YOu have such poor communications skills that I have to constantly try to get you to understand what I actually said, before you address it, making any actual discussion impossible, or.

3. You on some level know that your position is nonsense, so you constantly pretend to not understand what I say, as a troll evasion tactic.


Either way, this is a you problem, for you to deal with.

Meanwhile in teh real world, this nation has had discriminating in favor of minorities, as a policy and goal, for generations.

For you to deny this, is delusional in the extreme.

reply

How does it not? You said if they did not allow a white woman to audition for the role it would be discrimination against whites. I just proved to you that they allowed a white woman to audition for the role.

No you just do not like when your view or argument is punctured. So since they allowed a white woman to audition for the role how were white women being discriminated against?

Genrations? Go ahead and provide the date when the discrimination of white people started taking place.

I can deny it in areas where it does not apply. That is me being logical.

reply

1. What do you think my question was?

2. Irrelevant at this point.

3. When they started quotas for minorities.

4. "Areas"? LOL. Once again, you stand in a forest arguing about that this particular tree, is really more of a bush. You are delusional.

reply

Did you or did you not say that if white women were not allowed to audition that it was discrimination against whites?

Translation it is irrelevant because it disproves a narrative you were trying to paint. You are not getting off that easy.

No give me the date and year.

Nope I just do not think everywhere you look there is discrimination against whites. Just like how you don't think everywhere you turn there is discrimination against minorities. Works both ways.

reply

1. By definition, if you state that one group is not allowed to even try, that is discrimination against that group.

2. Don't do translations. You SUCK at understanding.

3. Why? And No.

4. I pointed out what was national policy and celebrated in our society. That is true. Your response does not directly address that.

reply

Correct. So then since Alica Vikander was allowed to audition that means no discrimination took place against whites correct?

Nope I understand perfectly.

Because I want to know when it took place. The burden of proof is on you.

You are attempting to use that to make it appear discrimination against whites happens at every turn. I just showed how whites were not discriminated against for Catwoman. Nice try.

reply

1. It is absurd to pretend that just because members of a group were allowed to go though the process, that the process was thus by definition fair.

2. Clearly not.

3. No you don't. You are purposefully generating strife over minor points, to distract from how badly you support your position.

4. Every turn is your words. My point has been about the pro-minority discriination that has been national policy and culturally celebrated for generations. The rest is you talking bs to distract from that.

reply

Now you are trying to move the goal post. So I just proved that Alicia Vikander auditioned for that role. You said that if one group is denied the opportunity to audition that is discrimination against that group. So then that means if no black women were allowed to audition for Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises that means that is discrimination against that group. You have nothing to prove that the selection was not fair. That is an assumption by you and it is dismissed.

Clearly I do understand.

No I want some proof from you. Notice how you refuse to provide it?

Yep but you are attempting to apply that in places where it is not taking place. Even if I grant the fact that discrimination against whites is happening that does not mean it is occurring here. I have completely decimated your here. You are simply too ignorant to realize it.

reply

1. As normal instead of allowing me to make a point, you dodged teh question and tehn misremembered it, and now we are wasting time, arguing about who said what. That is your choice. But it makes it impossible to speak to you as though you are a person.

2. Clearly you do not.

3. Only a dishonest person asks for "proof" of another man's internal thoughts.

4. You're a stone walling ass.

reply

You just said that if you don't allow a certain group to audition for a role that is discrimination against them. So since that's the case discrimination didn't take place against white women since Alicia Vikander auditioned for the role. You moved the goal post once I punctured that point.

Clearly I do.

Only a dishonest person claims they can know what another man's internal thoughts are.

No I just don't allow people to insert their agenda where it doesn't belong. Like I said I will allow you to call out discrimination when it exists. I don't see it in this scenario. I see a person complaining and then proceeding to give his money to people he claims discriminate. You see why I'm having a hard time with your logic.

reply

1. I asked a question, and you refused to answer in good faith. Now you are misremembering the question. This is typical of your behavior.

2. Clearly you don't.

3. Nope. People can look at the actions and words of other people and often have a good understanding of some of their thoughts. This is normal. For you to deny that, is you gaslighting.

it would be reasonable of you to demand I support my claim. It is unreasonable of you to demand "proof". You are being an asshole.

4. Noting national stated formal policy and what our culture celebrates on a massive scale, as context, is completely reasonable. YOu acting as though it is not, is you gaslighting.

reply

Ask your question then. I believe I answered it. However I will humor you. Go ahead.

Clearly I do.

Nope you can't know for a fact their internal thoughts. All you can do is give an educated guess. So nope wrong.

I didn't believe you because it functioned off of a generalization and an assumption. I don't function off of those things sorry. A generalization can be right but it can also be wrong as well. You tried to paint it as if it were an iron clad fact. Newsflash it isn't.

You paying money to people who you say discriminate is foolish on your end. I'm not foolish like you. The majority is happy with the film. Why should we let them cater to person like you?

reply

1/ I asked it long ago. You had your chance to answer it. You choose to play silly troll games.

2. Clearly you don't.

3. Which is why your demand for "proof" shows that you are just a dishonest troll.

4. Your opinion on my behavior is irrelevant to the point of the massive and widespread discrmiination. By ignoring the issue and instead attacking me, that is just another stupid and evasive troll boi game.

reply

I already answered it. Now who is playing games here?

Clearly I do.

Nope it shows that I don't believe assumptions or generalizations as facts like you do.

No it shows what type of person you are. It also shows hypocrisy on your end. Discrimination is not taking place in this scenario and I proved it. Whites were not discriminated against for Catwoman since Alicia Vikander was allowed to audition.

reply

1. i asked the question to make a point at that point in the discussion. You choose to play evasion games to the point that the question is no longer relevant. That was your choice to not engage in serious or honest discussion.

2. Clearly you don't understand.

3. You are talking in circles now. Standard boring stonewalling.

4. It does not. It cowardly dodges teh point, and instead changes teh subject to your enemy. Common tactic among trolls that know they are losing. ie you.

reply

Nope bull crap! I answered the question and once it contradicts your point you side step.

Clearly I do understand.

No you just realize I've caught onto your game and debate tactic.

No I proved your hypocrisy. You complain then willingly give money to the people you claim discriminate against you. What's the logic in that? Either way your attempt to apply discrimination to this scenario got debunked easily.

reply

1. Dude. That was days ago. I wanted to talk about it then. Now the conversation has moved on. Now you are avoiding what we are talking NOW, by going back. You do this shit all the time. You are an asshole.

2. Clearly you do not.

3. Trying to discuss issues seriously and honestly, is not a "tactic" but the way it is supposed to happen. Demanding "proof" of what someone is thinking, is you being an asshole.

4. None of that is relevant to anything we were discussing. You are just dodging more.

reply

How did I go back when you literally said anytime you don't allow a certain group to try it's discrimination? See this applies but only if you don't allow white people to audition.

Clearly I do.

You expecting me to accept your generalizations and assumptions as facts is you being an asshole.

It completely is relevant. You want to declare discrimination against whites at any given opportunity. That is disgusting.

reply

1, Becasue you dodged the question THEN, and now that the conversation has moved on, you now want to go BACK days, and ignore what we were talking about NOW. That is going back. And indeed, teh way I have to constantly explain stupid shit like this, it is impossible to talk to you like you are a person.


2. Nope. Not even a little. Or if you do, you lie about it.

3. Not at all. I would have happily accepted a reasonable challenge for evidence or explanation. Instead, you clearly signalled your intent to dishonest stonewalling. Indeed, I have often tried to direct the discussion to such avenues, but you strongly resist. That is because YOU are teh asshole.

4. National policies and cultural goals almost universally celebrated tend to be widespread. That you pretendn to be shocked by this, is just you gaslighting.

reply

It never moved from that point. You had nothing to counter my point against yours. It moved on because you literally side stepped.

Nope wrong I understand completely.

I offered you the chance to provide proof. You could not do it. Rather than go ok I can't prove it you got all salty. This shows I struck a nerve. It's not unreasonable to ask for proof of a claim. Even if I take your claims into account they don't apply. You just want them to.

Lol nope we are talking about this scenario. You don't get to pont to a broad spectrum and think that makes your point for you. I want proof in this scenario. You seriously have some screwed up views dude. Seek help before it's too late.

reply

1. Nope. I had a whole line of discussion on the topic I wanted to explore with you and instead you talked in circles. Now, I barely remember it. It's moot. You choose that. You either don't want, or are incapable of engaging in real human discussion.

2. Piss off, liar.

3. It is unreasonable to ask for "proof" of another man's internal thoughts. That is you stonewalling.

4. Said the man who was willing to call me wacist, at the drop of a hat, becuase of an imagined spectrum of weak ass bullshit. YOu are a troll asshole.

reply

Lol go ahead and comb through my recent posts. I am getting responses so no that contradicts what you are trying to say. Nice try though. I'm just not going to hold your hand when you can look yourself.

Lol you do as well. How many insults have you lobbed at me?

Your opinion. I disagree.

Then provide proof when asked. Stop side stepping .

reply

Nope once I am able to dismantle your points you side step. You just are not used to being challenged on a view. This is not surprising though. Bootlickers are used to saying their crap and usually do not know how to handle being questioned or challenged.

No I understand you are just salty I see through you.

Then it is unreasonable to expect people to take your generalizations and assumptions as facts. So I guess that makes us even.

You called Black Panther racist before I ever called you racist. That alone was enough for me to to be justified in calling you one. You are a disgusting race baiter.

reply

1. Now you are just lying.

2. Piss off liar.

3. You hinted at addressing my point. But nothing clear or firm to respond to or build on. YOu did make another accusation, based on a misrepresentation of my previous positions.

4. That's nonsense. YOu are a gaslighting troll boi.

reply

No I think I have struck a nerve. It's quite apparent because you continue to side step. I have you the chance to ask the question again even though I already answered it. You refused. You constantly do this.

No you and I both know I am telling the truth.

I did address your point. I argued against your reasons and you didn't like me arguing against your view. They tried emulate the year one comic book. Selina Kyle in that is mixed she isn't white. You deflected once I brought this up.

You calling black panther racist isn't nonsense. You did that. Now who is lying?

reply

1. No nerve. I'm sad that you refuse to engage in any actual discussion, but insist on playing silly games.

2. We both know that you are a liar.

3. You said nothing clearly, nothing I can use to move the conversation forward in any fashion. YOu did throw out new accusations based on misrepresentations of my positions. This is pretty normal for you and useless for any real discussion. You are an asshole.

4. YOu say that like you think it is a gotcha. YOu are an asshole.

reply

Absolute bs and you know it! If you truly were sad you would ask your question again since I offered. You didn't because you know I answered it already. I gave you a chance to ask it again, you refused. This shows you are the one playing games.

Lying is your gig not mine.

Nope the year one point I pointed out made your head spin. Tell me do you even know the history of how comic book characters work? I gave a reasonable argument and you can't go forward? What a joke?

It is a gotcha. You said racist first. Boom checkmate!

reply

1. i already explained why and instead of you addressing my reasons, you are hanging the discussion up, on you stupidly asking about shit I already explained. That is about half of your bag of tricks. It's retarded and it prevents any serious discussion. You are a stonewalling troll.

2. OMG, you are nothing but lies. YOu as a person, are lies.

3. Your demand was not reasonable. All you are doing is stonewalling now. You are a troll.

4. What you just said there, made no sense. YOu are just throwing shit at the wall, like a monkey now.

reply

Then guide us then. You take charge how do we move the conversation forward? No insults and how much you do not like me. Lets see a genuine attempt to move the conversation forward. I think you will proceed to insult me and lie rather than try and move the conversation forward.

No you are the liar not me.

No it wasn't. Wanting proof of a claim is not unreasonable. You expecting me to believe your assumptions and generalizations is unreasonable.

Nope it's me telling the truth. You calling black panther racist destroyed your credibility.

reply

1. I've tried that repeatedly, and EVERY TIME, you sooner or later, and by that I mean first, second or third post, start either jumping all over the place, or stonewalling on some silly gotcha bit.


2. This is you being a weird stonewalling troll.

3. Yep. Demaning proof of thougts, is unreasonable. That you deny that, is you revealing what a dishonest troll you are.

4. This is you trying to just throw more shit out there, thinking that saying a bunch of neg shit, will somehow support the accusations you are using in place of supporting arguments. .

reply

So you are not going to then? I don't believe you have. I think whenever you get challenged you side step and get frustrated.

No the one who stonewalls is you.

Nope it's perfectly reasonable. You thinking your assumptions and generalizations are facts shows that you are a troll yourself.

You know black panther isn't racist. You just got upset a film you didn't like was a success.

reply

1. I don't believe that you don't believe me. I think you are well aware of your shitty troll behavior.

2. Nope. You are the weird stonewalling troll.

3. Demaning proof of thougts, is unreasonable. That you deny that, is you revealing what a dishonest troll you are.

4. You claiming that as evidence is retarded. At best, it could be evidence that I am overly sensitive. For you to claim more, is you just talking shit.

reply

You are lying and you know it.

Nope you just can't stand being challenged.

Nope it is perfectly reasonable.

So why is it okay for you to be overly sensitive but I can't be? You are a proven hypocrite. First you were a hypocrite because you willingly pay money to the people you say are racist against you. Now it is okay for you to be overly sensitive but no one else can be. You saying that exposed you for who you truly are. Did you seriously think saying that would help your case?

reply

1. I don't believe that you don't believe me. I think you are well aware of your shitty troll behavior.

2. Nope. You are the weird stonewalling troll.

3. Demaning proof of thougts, is unreasonable. That you deny that, is you revealing what a dishonest troll you are.

4. Being sensitive about Hollywood is very different from insulting a person to their face, especially when it is used as a logical fallacy of attacking the messenger. Your behavior is that of an asshole troll.

reply

And I do no believe you one bit. I think you are a boot licker. This is typical behavior from a boot licking conservative.

Nope I just saw through your game. You mad bro?

No it is perfectly reasonable. Those that can't provide proof are the only people who would be upset by this.

No I feel I am justified in being sensitive to your race baiting behavior. Not a logical fallacy at all. I did not attack the messenger I saw through the disgusting game you played. I am glad that it made gobs of money and did well by the majority it shows you do not get your way. Wakanda Forever!

reply

1. I suspect all conservatives and moderates AND lefties, know that you are a troll. Most don't bother calling you on it, becuase most people have the sense to not even talk to you.

2. No, I'm not mad. But I do note that your behavior is typical leftard troll behavior, ie be an asshole and then pretend that any proper pushback is some problem of your target, instead of being about what an ass you are.

3. You asking for PROOF of what another man is thinking, is you being an unreasonable troll.

4. You say that, but you have been caught lying many times. How do we know whether that was a serious claim or you just talking shit?

reply

Nah I think you are simply upset I saw through you. It will be okay do not worry.

Yes you are mad. That is fine if you a boot licker is getting upset then I am all about it.

Nope proof is completely reason able to ask for. Only those who have none would find this upsetting.

I have caught you in lies myself. Are you going to be honest and man up to lying or pretend like you never lied?

reply

1. Said the man that doesn't want to talk about how most people ignore him.

2. lol. Just becausue I am accurately describing your behavior in normal wording, ie you are an asshole and/or a troll, does not mean that I am mad. I am just keeping it real, as the kids say.

3. Nope. Only a complete troll ass would demand "PROOF" of what another person is thinking.

4. I have caught you in many lies. Your sad attempt to create an illusion of balance by claiming the same, is just another lie from the troll boi.

reply

Most people do not ignore me. Only boot licking conservatives who have no retorts to my claims ignore me.

No it is quite obvious you are upset. This is obvious considering you will not come up with an actual argument. You just resort to insults.

Nope it is perfectly reasonable to ask for proof only those who have none find this upsetting.

Go ahead list the lies I have told. I can list plenty you have said as well. You have the floor go ahead.

reply

1. Really? I find that hard to believe.

2. Nope. Completely relaxed. The "insults" are just me describing your behavior accurately. That reality seems like an insult to you, well, you should think about that.

3. Only a dishonest troll would ask for PROOF about what another man in thinking.

4. There is no need. YOu remember being caught many times, and I remember catching you many times. Your denial is just another lie.

reply

Believe it.

Then why keep doing it? Come up with an actual argument. We already have established you think I am a jerk. Move on and actually address the points I make.

Nope like I said it is perfectly reasonable. Also I heard your arguments and they were not convincing in the slightest. I dismantled them easily and you got all salty. Do you know how comic book adaptions work? Do you read comics at all?

Translation you have nothing. Concession noted.

reply

1. Show me a link to another recent thread where multiple other people bother talking to you.

2. I've done so many times. YOu dodge or stonewall.

3. It is retarded to demand PROOF of what another person is thinking.

4. Ironic. I conceeded nothing. You just lied, right there.

reply

No since you do not provide any proof for your claims why should I?

No you have not. You had retort to the Year One comic point about Catwoman. Right when I bring that up you deflect.

Nope in my book it is perfectly fine. Only idiots like you think that way.

Nope if you fail to provide proof when asked that counts as a concession. I figured since you do that I will also sink to your level.

reply

1. When I say that, you say, "concession noted". Are you conceeding now, or were you lying then?

2. That stonewall rests on you having a personal definition of race change.

3. "in your book" is just you talking shit. It is bullshit to demand proof of thoughts.

4. See number one. Loser tard.

reply

I figured I would play your game. You do not provide proof of your claim on whatever it is is asked of you. Take with that what you will. So yeah I can concede and move on just like you constantly do. Annoying isn't it? I admit I say it is a concession because I am tired of you side stepping it gets old.

No it rests on me actually being reasonable and not race baiting. You should try it sometime.

Nope it is perfectly reasonable. Even with that aside your arguments were not convincing at all.

Okay cool so you are saying you can't provide proof?

reply

1. So you concede that most people ignore you? OK. That should tell you that you are the one with problems, not me.

2. You talk a lot of shit, online.

3. Only an ass would demand proof of thoughts.

4.Nope. I did not say that, or anything like that. Can you not read?

reply

Easy to say when your ancestors were not on short end of the stick.

reply

I agree 100% . There is no reason for a Black or Hispanic to admire Robert E Lee.

reply

Yeah too bad many can't see it this way.

reply

Whose ancestors were never on the short end of the stick?

reply

Not relevant to the discussion. So because others were mistreated that excuses another group doing it to another?

reply

You are not worth shining General Lee's dress shoes moviefanatic.

The Battle of Chancellorsville was a Confederate victory considered by many to be General Lee's best victory of the war.

I know what you would do if you were at the Battle of Chancellorsville moviefanatic. You would run away.

Do you know what the Union and Confederate armies did with deserters?

Live up to your username. Watch movies. Post about movies. Forget about historical figures. It is beyond your limitations. Live blissfully away from combat watching movies.

Robert E. Lee was a great soldier and general. A great man.

reply

And what's interesting:

they only condemn whites for it.

Can you imagine that they just released a movie celebrating some of the worse slave traders? But they were black so we can overlook that and paint them as heroes instead.

reply

Great point.

Only White American Slave Owners are condemned. The original Black Slave Owners in Africa who sold them in the first place, are given a free pass, and are proudly part of "Black History".

reply

Go back to your fantasy movies and leave the thinking to the competent.

reply




Oh fuck off KaiMaster you utter woke cunt. Here, you can have all my fucking contempt for you and it's heading your way. Cunt.


reply

He's just trolling click bait.

reply



I know, but that just made me feel a lot better. :-)

reply

yes exactly glad his statues are up no longer

reply

Does slave holder U S Grant deserve contempt?


https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/did-ulysses-grant-own-and-rent-slaves/

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/at-the-start-of-the-american-civil-war-u-s-grant-held-slaves-robert-e-lee-did-not.html

reply

Kwestmo, that is called "Whataboutism"

reply

your code word for hypocrisy. no surprise. I expected it.

reply

Who cares if Grant had slaves? He fought to preserve the Union, unlike that peckerwood Lee.

reply

like I said hypocrisy. you don't care if people own slaves as long as you like them.

reply