54 minutes ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

The old scapegoat was Lucas...

New scapegoat is Disney...

Well to be fair the prequels had terrible dialogue and directing. The sad thing is that Solo wasnt a bad movie. They just made way to many mistakes with it such as the initial directors trying to make it a comedy, releasing it five months after a not well received movie (regardless of if you like it or not many fans did have legitimate complaints), and the biggest mistake releasing it a MONTH AFTER INFINITY WAR WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT ARGGGG ASSORTED NOSIES OF RAGE

The science of the metacritic on Star Wars:

I - 51

II - 54

VI - 58

Solo - 62

Rogue One - 68

III - 68

VII - 81

V - 82

VIII - 85

IV - 90

The ninjacritic scores would swap V and IV, but other than that, I think this is pretty accurate.

3 minutes ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

The science of the metacritic on Star Wars:

I - 51

II - 54

IV - 58

Solo - 62

Rogue One - 68

III - 68

VII - 81

V - 82

VIII - 85

IV - 90

The ninjacritic scores would swap V and IV, but other than that, I think this is pretty accurate.

I think you swapped a 4 and a 6 there.

1 hour ago, chr335 said:

Well to be fair the prequels had terrible dialogue and directing. The sad thing is that Solo wasnt a bad movie. They just made way to many mistakes with it such as the initial directors trying to make it a comedy, releasing it five months after a not well received movie (regardless of if you like it or not many fans did have legitimate complaints), and the biggest mistake releasing it a MONTH AFTER INFINITY WAR WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT ARGGGG ASSORTED NOSIES OF RAGE

Nosies of Rage is going to be the name of my next band

3 hours ago, Cpt. Caine said:

Thank you for the discourse.

I highly recommend Enlightenment Now. It is a data driven piece that challenges multiple incorrect believes about the world and it generally has a very positive message and agenda. It is slightly over-enthusiastic about the wonders of capitalism for my taste and disregards the distinction between income and capital that was Thomas Pikketys main (also data driven) point in his magnum opus Capital in the 21st Century when it considers wealth and equality. But that's my only issue with it.

I will make one last musinf regarding the issue at hand though. On a more general note.

If we take as a premise that the Armada Community at large is tired of hearing about TLJ criticisms (which I will maintain is at least partly false) BECAUSE it inadvertently turn a political and what not.

Then it ia highly curious that in all cases I've witnessed (with one exception) otherwise completely unpolitical discussions on the impact of events in TLJ (part if the Star Wars canon) have been hijacked and attacked by people 'who're tired if hearing about TLJ' who then brought up political issues.

Stating the obvious. It is oxymoronic that people who are tired of TLJ discussions turning political to turn them into political arguments.

In the case of the thread that was recently closed, this even took place when a person who took that exact oxymoronic stance and who wasn't involved in the discussion previously. So in effect they specifically sought out a discussion with TLJ references and got involved, with their first comment being that they didn't want to hear about TLJ criticisms. Nothing was forced upon anyone.

Maybe people who tire of TLJ discussions and their political nature should indeed ignore discussions about TLJ they don't care for instead of participating or starting hate campaigns against people who dislike TLJ

I can't speak for others, but what gets me down is when TLJ is brought up directly or tangentially and then someone becomes Negative Nelly and really brings the conversation down.

Genuinely, I don't care what you think of the film. By bringing entirely unwelcome negativity and criticism to a thread, you make the forum a worse place. Complaining about the film is not going to make the world one iota better, it's going to make it worse.

You're cross. Fine. Please don't force others to read how cross you are and bring down plastic spaceship discussions.

3 hours ago, Cpt. Caine said:

Ugh. Double post.

6 hours ago, Cpt. Caine said:

You are mistaken on many levels.

I called THIRD WAVE feminism such (you know, not the kind that posits gender equality above what we see in the US - but which is present for an example in Scandinavia where I hail from - the kind that posits that men should be intently diminished and all sorts of radical opinions that rational people usually don't support and would fight against if it hadn't hijacked the feminist agenda).

I did it AFTER the other side in an argument strawmanned an untenable position against feminism. Just like you're doing now. Obviously I'll explain that it's, in my opinion? a drop in the water in relation to people disliking TLJ - but it is a drop when it comes to showing down a viewpoint down people's throat. Whilst painting yourself up to be the champion of 'good' without understanding what you're blindly fighting.

Do you know who thinks (third wave) feminism is a threat to major pillars of Western society?

People like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker. All declared feminists. All left wing (in the American sense of left and right). One a fervent spearheader of gay rights. One an extremely vocal Trump critic. All paragons of science.

I'm guessing a lot of these things are read into the toxic political climate in the US? So, service announcement for social justice warriors (I still don't comprehend how you can find this term more problematic than the myriad of derogatory things said about me and other people who dislike TLJ. Neither do I ever really use it. But you pigeonholed me as someone who does, so fair enough): You can criticise feminism, for good reasons, without being a Trump supporter.

@Cpt. Caine someone might have many fine qualities, but that does not mean they are never wrong about something, and for at least some things it certainly does not mitigate.

My one and only exposure to Sam Harris was from a friend who linked me his podcast episode discussing Charles Murray’s book on IQ tests. After actually delving into the source material used for the book, apparently further than Harris ever did, I noted that the studies used were woefully inadequate (Short version: Using a survey of ~100 students in one school in a country of over a million is insufficient to tell you anything at all about that single population, let alone extrapolate it to neighboring countries. Which is exactly how Murray jumped to a racist conclusion.).

Harris was either so incompetently sloppy that he didn’t bother to check the underlying sources beforehand or deliberately trying to mislead his audience. There is no third option.

And as someone who believes that seeking the truth is of paramount importance in all things, I can not respect or forgive him that, especially considering how repugnant the conclusions that Murray drew and advocated based on this utter rubbish.

Separately, just a slight bit of advice: Do not expect that anyone who reads your writing on the internet will notice a denunciation of “third wave feminism” as anything but an attack on the broader concept.

If you mean to say simply: No one should be discriminated against....just say that, avoid the shorthand