14 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

Sure, there's always a variable and margin of error in everything. As they say, only Siths deal in absolutes, and I always try to use terms and phrasing that imply a margin of error, and acknowledging a varying of opinion (not that many people actually comprehend that when reading it, and assume you are talking about EVERYONE,just look above in this very thread, where I specify that I wasn't talking about all detractors, and yet a few people still felt the need to tell me "not everyone who hates the films hate them for your reasons, even though that's not what I said, at all). But there is a level of genuine vitriol, I mean you can see it on this very forum from some of the posters, and I've heard it from the very mouths of some fans.

If, however, the study is fairly accurate, it’s reflective of a conversation on the latest This Week in Tech podcast. As part of the discussion, they were talking about a study concerning the foreign use of Facebook to influence US culture, and how it impacted the election. It compared a “genuine” Facebook page/group with a foreign-controlled page/group designed to influence. At the top level, both presented themselves very similarly (in the example they used, one was a “rules for dating my daughter” page and the other was similar). The foreign-controlled influencer site, after gathering followers with apparent benign content, then begin to veer off into political/social influencing. (As the TWiT contributors put it, “One was 10 cat pictures, the other was 9 cat pictures followed by 1 political post.”)

If we look at both of these studies together, and they both have meat to them, it begs the question: how many “genuine” people spewing the bile and venom would be as worked up about it without being egged on to that next level by people (or algorithms) intent on fanning the flames of divisiveness?

15 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

If, however, the study is fairly accurate, it’s reflective of a conversation on the latest This Week in Tech podcast. As part of the discussion, they were talking about a study concerning the foreign use of Facebook to influence US culture, and how it impacted the election. It compared a “genuine” Facebook page/group with a foreign-controlled page/group designed to influence. At the top level, both presented themselves very similarly (in the example they used, one was a “rules for dating my daughter” page and the other was similar). The foreign-controlled influencer site, after gathering followers with apparent benign content, then begin to veer off into political/social influencing. (As the TWiT contributors put it, “One was 10 cat pictures, the other was 9 cat pictures followed by 1 political post.”)

If we look at both of these studies together, and they both have meat to them, it begs the question: how many “genuine” people spewing the bile and venom would be as worked up about it without being egged on to that next level by people (or algorithms) intent on fanning the flames of divisiveness?

Great the OP wants to speak in an echo chamber, and you think some facebook ads hardly anyone saw influenced the election, and not the low quality of the candidates running.

35 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

If we look at both of these studies together, and they both have meat to them, it begs the question: how many “genuine” people spewing the bile and venom would be as worked up about it without being egged on to that next level by people (or algorithms) intent on fanning the flames of divisiveness?

I think TLJ was a crapsack of a movie, and I own that opinion without need to blame others for "fanning the flames of divisiveness" as you call it. A negative opinion is just as valid as a positive one, and conspiracy theories to explain why it got negative reviews sounds like a lame attempt to dismiss opposing viewpoints.

3 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

I think TLJ was a crapsack of a movie, and I own that opinion without need to blame others for "fanning the flames of divisiveness" as you call it. A negative opinion is just as valid as a positive one, and conspiracy theories to explain why it got negative reviews sounds like a lame attempt to dismiss opposing viewpoints.

I agree with you for the most part about your opinion being yours, but political conspiracies are how **** gets done there the norm not the exception. People get paid a lot of money to manipulate public perception. So when star wars shows up on some right or left wing show or site it generates traffic both for the site and pushes that sites opinions into the dialog.

37 minutes ago, Eoen said:

Great the OP wants to speak in an echo chamber, and you think some facebook ads hardly anyone saw influenced the election, and not the low quality of the candidates running.

I don't want to speak in an echo chamber, but if you are going to post a response that has nothing to do with what I actually said, I'm going to call you on it. After spending a significant amount of word count saying "I'm not saying that everyone who hates the film is a toxic *****hole" if you respond with "Not everyone who hates the film is a toxic *****hole!" you clearly didn't read what I had to say, and have replied in a way completely irrelevant to the actual subject.

Then why bring it up a day later after I didn’t reply?

41 minutes ago, Eoen said:

I agree with you for the most part about your opinion being yours, but political conspiracies are how **** gets done there the norm not the exception. People get paid a lot of money to manipulate public perception. So when star wars shows up on some right or left wing show or site it generates traffic both for the site and pushes that sites opinions into the dialog.

And in real life, that excuse still fails. If I go to my director and tell her that my patient experience scores are down this month and I blame Russian hackers, it doesn't matter. What matters is the scores are still down. That's the widely held perception, therefore the reality. The perception that TLJ is a crap movie is fairly widespread, and it doesn't really matter how that perception formed because it's now the reality. Perhaps Disney might want to buy some Russian hackers of their own...

14 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

And in real life, that excuse still fails. If I go to my director and tell her that my patient experience scores are down this month and I blame Russian hackers, it doesn't matter. What matters is the scores are still down. That's the widely held perception, therefore the reality. The perception that TLJ is a crap movie is fairly widespread, and it doesn't really matter how that perception formed because it's now the reality. Perhaps Disney might want to buy some Russian hackers of their own...

Yeah that is why conspiracies/marketing/advertising/propaganda still happen, because people on the ground don’t care or notice they are being manipulated.

There’s also the fact the the latest trilogy inspires passion, which is a sign it is good art.

1 hour ago, Eoen said:

Great the OP wants to speak in an echo chamber, and you think some facebook ads hardly anyone saw influenced the election, and not the low quality of the candidates running.

For your reply to represent what I said, we have to ignore the qualifiers that I included. Namely, saying that if both studies are valid, it can lead to the question I posed.

I never said that “some facebook ads hardly anyone saw influenced the election.” I said that if the article/study they discussed on the latest TWiT is valid, the same principle can be applied to the study linked about TLJ if it is valid, as well.

51 minutes ago, Eoen said:

There’s also the fact the the latest trilogy inspires passion, which is a sign it is good art.

The Kavanaugh confirmation inspires passionate responses too. Does that make it good art? I think not. It's a crapsack piece just like TLJ.

Just now, HappyDaze said:

The Kavanaugh confirmation inspires passionate responses too. Does that make it good art? I think not. It's a crapsack piece just like TLJ.

Yeah, politics is pure theater.

I liked the Last Jedi for the most part, so I will have to disagree with you.

1 hour ago, HappyDaze said:

I think TLJ was a crapsack of a movie, and I own that opinion without need to blame others for "fanning the flames of divisiveness" as you call it. A negative opinion is just as valid as a positive one, and conspiracy theories to explain why it got negative reviews sounds like a lame attempt to dismiss opposing viewpoints.

This swings back around to the OP’s (oft-repeated) disclaimer that not everyone who didn’t care for the movie reacted with venom, anger, and toxicity. Not everyone who disliked the movie harassed actors for doing their jobs to the point that they called it a day and left social media (a platform that is fast reaching the point of not only being ubiquitous but required for entertainers).

You’re absolutely right that a negative reaction is just as valid as a positive one. (Ask me about the DC movie franchise sometime.) I was referring to those who went even further than Spinal Tap and dialed their public vitriol up to 21.

5 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

For your reply to represent what I said, we have to ignore the qualifiers that I included. Namely, saying that if both studies are valid, it can lead to the question I posed.

I never said that “some facebook ads hardly anyone saw influenced the election.” I said that if the article/study they discussed on the latest TWiT is valid, the same principle can be applied to the study linked about TLJ if it is valid, as well.

That tweet is political tripe for two reasons; one the USA is always interfering in other peoples elections and we rarely run our own elections fairly as well. As we are the world leader in election fraud (like how we interfered in Brazil's recent elections through facebook no less) we should have nothing to say on the subject publicly.

2 hours ago, Eoen said:

If we look at both of these studies together, and they both have meat to them, it begs the question: how many “genuine” people spewing the bile and venom would be as worked up about it without being egged on to that next level by people (or algorithms) intent on fanning the flames of divisiveness?

I apologize if I took I took you posting of other peoples studies as an indicator of you position.

Must say, I'm quite impressed with the complete not-giving-a-****edness of the mods.

27 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

This swings back around to the OP’s (oft-repeated) disclaimer that not everyone who didn’t care for the movie reacted with venom, anger, and toxicity. Not everyone who disliked the movie harassed actors for doing their jobs to the point that they called it a day and left social media (a platform that is fast reaching the point of not only being ubiquitous but required for entertainers).

You’re absolutely right that a negative reaction is just as valid as a positive one. (Ask me about the DC movie franchise sometime.) I was referring to those who went even further than Spinal Tap and dialed their public vitriol up to 21.

A "not all" disclaimer should not be used to marginalize or silence the non-toxic opposition. If I wish to voice negativity about TLJ (and TFA for that manner), I shouldn't be excluded because I'm "not the problem we're talking about, so hush."

1 hour ago, Eoen said:

Then why bring it up a day later after I didn’t reply?

Bring what up a day later? I responded to your post from 2 hours ago. And you did reply earlier, back on page one, something I replied to when I had time to reply to it. I do have a life and a job that takes up a significant amount of my time.

19 minutes ago, emsquared said:

Must say, I'm quite impressed with the complete not-giving-a-****edness of the mods.

I fully expect it to get locked.

6 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

A "not all" disclaimer should not be used to marginalize or silence the non-toxic opposition. If I wish to voice negativity about TLJ (and TFA for that manner), I shouldn't be excluded because I'm "not the problem we're talking about, so hush."

But I didn't use it to marginalize the non-toxic opposition, even though many responses in this thread have been worded as if I did. Please quote the part in any of my posts, where I marginalized the non-toxic opposition. I stress this, because the comments are starting to pile up in this thread, of multiple people, basically saying I said stuff that I didn't, and then trying to counter those comments. I'll own up to anything I've said that's wrong, and clarify my point if necessary, though I don't think it is necessary, given how many times I've clarified what and whom I was referring to. But I will take issue of people putting words in my mouth, just so they can refute those words I never said.

I have zero issue if you just don't like the films, I'm not here to police your opinion on a piece of fictional work about space wizards with laser swords 2.0, not being of a story type that you found enjoyable, compared to space wizards 1.0. I also will agree with some of the criticisms of the films, as I don't find them to be great, just good and enjoyable. They did some things well, in my opinion, some things not so well. I personally found the negative aspects of them to be less of an issue, compared to what they did that I enjoyed, so the net result is a series of films that I find enjoyable, and "just fine". Others love them as if they are the 2nd coming of *insert your favorite religious figure here*, and others think they are complete shite. I don't care, and that's not what this thread was about, again, something I've stated multiple times. If someone wants to objectively discuss the negative aspects of those films, knock yourself out, though not in this thread, as that's not the actual subject of it. I'm simply referring to the people who can't be civil in their criticisms of the new material. Who HAVE gone into the realm of hostile behavior, and toxicity to the people they are engaging with. Which, regardless of the subject, isn't cool.

2 minutes ago, Eoen said:

I fully expect it to get locked.

Ah, were you quoting the other poster in your comment about bringing it up a day later? I assumed you were referring to me, since it was right after my post. If you were responding to someone else, then my apologies about the confusion. I didn't see that person's post at all on my screen.

11 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

Bring what up a day later? I responded to your post from 2 hours ago. And you did reply earlier, back on page one, something I replied to when I had time to reply to it. I do have a life and a job that takes up a significant amount of my time.

NM I was responding to you complaining about me to someone else. I don't like the idea that you're trying to constrain speech on this subject, when 2/3 of the speech on the subject is toxic. I also don't like hearing a bunch of criticism about our beloved franchise but if you won't even discuss the reason behind said speech then why even bring it up.

1 minute ago, Eoen said:

NM I was responding to you complaining about me to someone else. I don't like the idea that you're trying to constrain speech on this subject, when 2/3 of the speech on the subject is toxic. I also don't like hearing a bunch of criticism about our beloved franchise but if you won't even discuss the reason behind said speech then why even bring it up.

I'm not trying to constrain speech on the subject, but if I freaking say very clearly "I'm not making these comments in regards to everyone that dislikes the films" and then you reply saying "Hey, not everyone that dislikes the films is like this", then you are basically babbling at that point, and your comment has no actual relevance to the subject. Because you are arguing a point that was never made, because it's not what I said. And you did quote me at one point, and basically say exactly that. It was in regards to the issue with twitter and Rose Tico's actress. Since you seem to have forgotten what you said, only one page ago, that I replied to, i'll quote it again.

"I’m not sure all the detractors are alt-right like in the Kelly Tran case. There seems to be both an ideological reaction from one camp of fans, and while another group feels there childhood is being wrecked because their head-canon has been violated."

I never said all detractors were that. YOU said that. Despite me saying prior to that, that I was only referring to the people who DID act like that, you commented in way that implies you didn't actually read what I said, or if you did, you still felt compelled to suggest I was talking about everyone, which I wasn't.

You say you don't like the constraint of speech, something I never did, well I don't like debating points that were never made, especially when they are pointed out ahead of time as not being what I'm saying.

But at this point, I'm pretty much tired of having to say this in every post, so whatever, think what you want about what I've said, even though it's very clear what I said. I'm done responding at this point.

The Last Jedi

What I didn't like, the long slow chase scene that took up half the movie, the canto bright thread, I wanted more of DJ and more of Rey being trained and more time to pass the fact that the movie made it seem like only a few days had passed kinda sucked. So Luke is Rey's Ben; not her Yoda.

Phasma was underutilized and her death anti-climatic.

Ackbar's death was pointless he should have been the Admiral Holdo character instead.

Luke was underutilized, though the scene at the end was cool.

Liea in the vacuum reminded me to much of superman flying.

Snoke was underutilized.

On 10/2/2018 at 4:04 PM, KungFuFerret said:

I'm not trying to constrain speech on the subject, but if I freaking say very clearly "I'm not making these comments in regards to everyone that dislikes the films" and then you reply saying "Hey, not everyone that dislikes the films is like this", then you are basically babbling at that point, and your comment has no actual relevance to the subject. Because you are arguing a point that was never made, because it's not what I said. And you did quote me at one point, and basically say exactly that. It was in regards to the issue with twitter and Rose Tico's actress. Since you seem to have forgotten what you said, only one page ago, that I replied to, i'll quote it again.

"I’m not sure all the detractors are alt-right like in the Kelly Tran case. There seems to be both an ideological reaction from one camp of fans, and while another group feels there childhood is being wrecked because their head-canon has been violated."

I never said all detractors were that. YOU said that. Despite me saying prior to that, that I was only referring to the people who DID act like that, you commented in way that implies you didn't actually read what I said, or if you did, you still felt compelled to suggest I was talking about everyone, which I wasn't.

You say you don't like the constraint of speech, something I never did, well I don't like debating points that were never made, especially when they are pointed out ahead of time as not being what I'm saying.

But at this point, I'm pretty much tired of having to say this in every post, so whatever, think what you want about what I've said, even though it's very clear what I said. I'm done responding at this point.

It's good your done responding because my first post was about monetization driving the topic. Which is not off topic its the root of the problem with the fan base. Nor was I debating with you, I was simply making a statement, you interpreted it as one. ""I’m not sure all the detractors are alt-right like in the Kelly Tran case." this is called a generalization since obviously I don't know what all of them think.

16 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

But at this point, I'm pretty much tired of having to say this in every post, so whatever, think what you want about what I've said, even though it's very clear what I said. I'm done responding at this point.

So that's the ugly truth of communication: What you intend to say matters almost not at all. What you actually say matters only a bit. What another person interprets you as having said matters. What that other person then says about what you had said matters a lot more.

This thread is a perfect example of deliberately misinterpreting someone's position & sabotaging civil discourse in order to get off on hate and anger.