MovieChat Forums > Windsaar > Replies
Windsaar's Replies
Lots of people imagine lots of things. That doesn't make them so though.
He was a piece of shit for sure. Who's "gatekeeping" him though?
What (and why) does/would anyone's political leanings have anything to do with anything?
How was he a pedophile? The youngest he killed was 14.
Your comment leaves many questions.
Nailed it.
She wouldn't even have needed a taser lol.
She could have just one-punched him.
That said, she probably wouldn't even need to make a fist and could have knocked him out cold with a simple slap. She wouldn't even need the back of the hand lol.
I don't think it sounds like a Maritimes accent personally. I think it seems more like an accent you'd hear in/around the Prairies.
Saying "he sounded Canadian" is like saying "he sounded American" though.
It doesn't make sense lol. It depends on where in Canada (or the US) you're from.
As a Canadian, I know there are people who sound like that (mostly up North). I've personally never heard it though.
lol... He's not even alive.
Good luck to you!
He was both gay and definitely not turned on by violence, though.
Before he died, he did a lot of interviews and often said that he'd usually get borderline blind-drunk before he killed (because he disliked the violence). He just wanted them to never leave him.
He said that he experimented with trying to keep them alive, (trying to make obedient zombies) but just ended up killing them.
Normally, there'd be a lot of reason to disbelieve a serial killer, especially if they're saying they aren't into violence.
IMO though, regarding Dahmer, I think I believe most of what he said.
He was pretty bluntly honest with his replies and never tried to make himself look better than he was (or so it seemed). He basically said himself that his answers would make him even more hated, but he didn't see a need to sugar-coat anything and just wanted to get everything off his chest.
It's been a while since I watched them, but most (if not all) are up on YouTube if you (or anyone) happens to be interested.
If I remember right, the one with the most information is fairly long and broken into segments/chapters. I THINK it's the one where he's accompanied by his father.
Who says you aren't?
All the other stuff aside, they're talking about birthing scenes that have actually appeared on the show.
We could compare them to battle scenes we EXPECT to happen...or anything that hasn't happened yet, but that would ultimately be futile. IMO
While I know it was a Danish writer, I can see where you're going with your comment lol.
Not sure what the "arab washing" is all about though.
Could you even IMAGINE what would happen if it was actually supposed to be a black character, and Disney did a black-to-white swap instead of a white-to-black one?
People would lose their shit SO incredibly hard that Disney would potentially have to shut down for a while to deal with all the chaos and riots.
Clever. lol
Yes. I wanted that very much.
She should have lost her tongue, her sisters lost their magic hair. She should have killed herself at the end.
If you're gonna make a movie based on the book, you should include the plot to the book, imo.
The race/colour change is only considered insignificant because it was a white-to-black swap.
If it were a black-to-white swap, the world would shut down and crash + burn
I don't care either way. Just enjoying all of the drama lol
Agreed, they should include all the gore as well.
That said, I think they chose to not include that because it's a remake of the Disney version and those parts aren't in the Disney one.
Why does one have to be considered a "nerdy racist" because they've read and understood a book?
Is it reading that makes one nerdy?
I can only assume they're "racist" because the mermaid in Anderson's version was a white-girl?
I read the book long ago, but I don't want to re-read it if it'll automatically make me a racist lol
What's the name?
Probably because it's supposed to be a kids movie?
Tell your friend to ask themselves!
/s
I don't care about Ariel being white or black or whatever.
I am confused though about the "Stop white supremacist Chinese from stealing what rightfully belongs to Blacks!" quote at the end there.
Firstly, don't you actually have to be white to be a white supremacist? I know that some Chinese people are light-skinned, and could be considered "white", but to say that all Chinese are not only "white" but "white supremacist" seems less like the poster understands what the eff they're actually saying, and more like they're just butt-hurt and trying to throw around "trigger-words" to get a rise out of people (+get more likes/comments on their post. Isn't that what life is all about? The American Dream? "Likes" on social-media? lol).
Also, what do you think it is that "rightfully belongs to Blacks" means? The technology was invented by the Chinese, the post says...so how could it belong to the Blacks (or anyone who didn't actually invent/create it)?
While I'm here writing, I might as well throw in the "turning progress back in an era when they are supposed to be uplifted as king" quote.
What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?
If a new technology was invented and is being used, it's painfully clear that progress is ADVANCING instead of regressing. Maybe the tech is being used "nefariously" (according to some...maybe even most), but it's still a new tech, and new =/= backwards.
Also super confused what "supposed to be uplifted as king" is supposed to mean as well.
Who's supposed to be uplifted as king, and why would anyone expect anything like that to happen?
Prince (I guess "King" now) Charles' mother was a LITERAL Queen, and he had to wait almost 75 years to be treated/uplifted as King lol. Who's expecting to be treated as King while having zero royalty in their veins? Do they mean every person of colour, or just the blacks, or who?
I don't expect you to personally know the answers to my questions obviously.
Honestly, I don't even expect the creator of that pic/post to know the answers...they seem genuinely confused by life, how it works, words, what they mean, etc.
I'm just terribly confused by it all lol
lol
First and foremost, I'm going to get the fact that I'm not a Trumpet/Trumptard/Trump-some-sort-of-"clever"-insulting-nickname/Trump voter. I'm not even American. I just wanted to let that be known, only so my comment doesn't get taken under the wrong context (I'm not blindly defending him, just saying my 2cents).
That said:
While I completely agree with you, and am not arguing your point...he didn't say/imply he was above the law during that particular speech...although he does act like it. I could totally see how people would think he was implying him being above the law though, I could also see how people wouldn't think that (myself included).
He was just saying that even if he killed someone, people would still love him and vote for him...which, sadly, is completely accurate and one of the more honest things he's said.
Yes, I'm aware that murder is a capital offense, and that he would be arrested IRL...sad thing is, theoretically speaking of course, IF he were SOMEHOW able to run for office after being released from jail for murder (I know he wouldn't), he'd probably still have roughly the same amount of voters/followers.
I can only assume that some people would turn their backs on him, but honestly, I doubt it would be enough to make a substantial difference.
He'd end up having roughly the same amount of Trumpets idolizing him.
Depending on who he kills, they may idolize him even more-so than they currently do...sad day.
This is all IMO, of course.
Edit: typos/grammar.
lol