u/CummingInTheNile

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/hatethissmug/comments/1tip2gb/i_hate_the_term_the_male_gaze/

HIGHLIGHTS

This subreddit appears to have entirely transformed into a place for right-wing incels to whine about everything that goes against their political beliefs >M-Maybe if I call them incls they’ll give me some leftover pussy 🥺 >>image >>>Then why do leftists constantly use "Women won't have sex with you" as an insult? >>>>they dont >>>>>That's what "incel" implies, and it's one of the most popular insults used by leftists. >>>>>>incl when used as an insult moreso implies like the pathetic whining associated with those who self identify with the term, at least thats how i always viewed it. “women won’t have sex with you” would be more like using virgin as an insult >>>>>>>And what are they whining about? That women don't have sex with them. To say that there is no implication of "not getting laid" would be incorrect.

Male gaze is not "oh the character is sexy" it's "sexy is all the character is" >But that's rarely the case. Even in video games where the female is extremely sexy, she's usually also a badass proficient in 20 weapons who saves the world a dozen time while doing back flips in high heels. If you want "sexy is all the character is" you don't have to look any further than real-world female Instagram and OF models. >>If that is the norm in that universe (for gameplay related characters) then it doesn’t really matter. Also, look at Quiet from MGSV. Her being in a bikini breaks previously established lore. So characterisation is literally being sacrificed >>>How does that break lore? Did they say she needs to be 100% nude to breathe? >>>>The opposite, actually. There was another character in a previous game that had a similar power (The End), but he was a gross old man so he got to wear a full camo suit instead of a speedo. >>>>>But they don't have the exact same parasite thing if I remember correctly. Dunno I'm a bit rusty on my mgsv retcon lore. >>>>>>Yeah but the fact that both extremely similar and it just so happens that hers is different enough that she has to wear a bikini is an example of the Male Gaze.

It's definitely a thing. But you could just be normal about and say "yes but I still enjoy it." Like by your own admission there's nothing wrong with it, why do you take offense at the term? >It really isn't a thing. Male sexuality is normal and healthy just like female sexuality, there's just been a movement to try and demonize it. It's ok for characters to be sexy and there be fan service, and it's ok to not have those things. Both are ok. >>Fr and as a queer woman I assure you it has nothing to do with being male. I just like seeing other women >>>That’s always my question. If lesbians are enjoying “the male gaze”, is it still problematic? >>>>As a bi woman, I’d 100% rather attract lesbians than straight men. Lesbians in the by large have been far more respectful while I’ve met men who can’t handle the slightest rejection. I’ve never been sexually harassed by a lesbian but I have been sexually assaulted and harassed by men since I was 5. The issues isn’t the sexualization of women, it’s that society doesn’t teach men how to handle rejection well. It’s treating women like objects rather than living beings with their own goals. I do want to say the obvious, none of this applies to all men and I’m friends with some really wonderful awesome dudes. >>>>>Lesbians are far more respectfull? Lmao. Dont look up the domestic violence amongst lesbian couples. >>>>>>This stat is bogus as it counted past abuse, i.e. Including abuse wherein a lesbian tried to force themselves into a relationship with a man due to societal pressure and then were abused in that relationship, all it demonstrates is that lesbians are abused, not that they are abusive.

Male gaze is a problem because of how prevalent it is. And female gaze is not as common. >Neither are a problem >>The problem is that male gaze is the norm. If you look at popular media, you will find the majority of it has male gaze in mind, and only a few examples will have female gaze >>>It is when only caters to men. Like gacha games mostly think about the male gaze, and don't put any effort on the male characters for the women >>>>I think that's because typically women aren't as interested in that kind of fan service (though some are). It would be like me saying "why are these smutty novels always written for women, why do the men always act this way in these novels?" >>>>>Yeah thats completely untrue, you just need to look at the monthly revenue of love and deep space. Game created for the female gaze, on top of the charts ever since it came out. It even beats genshin in some of the months >>>>>>Ok then they do enjoy their female gaze too. And neither "gaze" is wrong

I don't understand why men liking to look at attractive fictional characters is somehow a problem >Men liking attractive fictional characters isn't the problem though. The problem is when female characters exist first and foremost to be ogled at, usually at the cost of characterization or believability of the designs or variety of body types or all of those things combined. Also this view assumes everything should be catered to men first and foremost which, why? It's worth questioning imo. >>None of this is true lol men if you're reading this, it's 100% ok like attractive women and like sex. Don't listen to crazy people like this on the internet, they are not professionals, they do not have authority, and all of these strong opinions they have were formed in seconds without any real thought >>>Time to work on your reading comprehension >>>>"another opinion I don't like that makes me shake with anger. Time to pull out old faithful, the classic reading comprehension insult" >>>>>Buddy you're arguing against things you made up in your head. Nobody said any of that >>>>>>Please go read some other comments, many people are saying that. Again none of what the original comment said is true, it's fine to have sexy women to be ogled at and find to have sexy man to be ogled at. It isn't a problem, and it's fine if people don't like it but the sane thing to do is not watch that stuff rather than rile up an angry mob about the male gaze

Yes. Setting whatever academic theory aside, the common use of the phrase as just an insult is tiresome and pointless. Essentially it boils down to: evolution has made males like to gaze at attractive women. Pointing this out ad nauseam is as silly as constantly pointing out how all food ads are designed for the human gaze of hunger. Like, yes, this pizza advertisement caters to the human gaze, and? So what? Of course it does. They're trying to attract people by using what evolution has programmed them to be attracted to. Sorry about millions of years of evolution and how it is a problem for these people. >The problem is not that it exists but that it is the norm. >>Yup. Evolution made humans obsessed with attractiveness and food and made males more easily swayed into buying things with attractive women in them. >>>Then why isn't female gaze as common in popular media? Male gaze is only a problem because majority of media panders to straight men. >>>>Men are easier to manipulate using this. It's more reliable and predictable. They make more money this way. That's really all there is to it. If all the big bucks were in pandering otherwise they absolutely would. >>>>>Thats not true >>>>>>That's basic economics. They do EVERYTHING they can to make as much money as possible. There are teams of people working on this exact thing 24/7. If pandering otherwise were more profitable that would be the norm.

"•Chris Hemworth as Thor is repeatedly sexually objectified. •Chris Evans as Captain America. Certainly in the first one. •>Hugh Jackman as Wolverine may be the most egregious example in the Marvel films. So much so, I think they even called attention to the fact in "Deadpool & Wolverine"." All those are examples of male gaze. >Which I think is evidence that the "Male gaze" is not a sexist thing. Men like looking at attractive things (and so do women, but that's a side point). I do not think there is anything wrong with that. >>It's wrong because its the most common "gaze". And its not a sexism thing, its a patriarchy thing. Men have had the dominant role in society for so long that pandering to men is the norm. >>>What would you say is a "female gaze"? Or does it even exist? >>>>Look at media created by women for women >>>>>So if it is not made by a woman, then it is not suited towards women and is therefore wrong? That seems widely sexist. Why is it morally wrong for men to have media made for them? >>>>>>No. Male gaze is the norm so basically nobody notices it, even the writers don't notice it. Because of that, if you want to find examples of female gaze you have to look at things made FOR women. The reason i said "by a woman" is because what men think women consider attractive is not usually accurate.

Maybe it’s because most content is made with the male gaze in mind lmao. You’re hating on something that is completely true And I’m guessing you’re a man which is why you’re not too bothered by it even though it’s extremely harmful >Are most romantic fantasy books made with the male gaze in mind? How about rom-coms? Or other types of romance genres. Most anime and japanese video-games are made with the male gaze in mind, i 100% agree. However, i feel like most hollywood movies the last 10 years or so, are not. Also, most western video games are not that either (anymore). >>So, you can name one genre of thing (romance, ironically) that isn't made with the male gaze in mind? I think that still qualifies the other side as "most content". I agree we have gotten better with things like video games though. But the journey isn't done. >>>My issue with the term is that it morphs to apply to almost any fit character. In the Batman "Catwoman looks sexy": Thats the male gaze because men like to look at women as sexual objects; but also "Batman has body builder muscles" is also the male gaze, because men want to be like batman and have body-builder muscles................ >>>>We're not saying that no character can be a sexy woman with curves or that no character can be a fit muscly man. What we're saying is it's a problem when those are the ONLY characters and when even IF other body types are represented, they're turned into a joke. >>>>>When the main examples of "This character is male gaze coded" are main characters...and regardless of the character being male or female, the argument is still "Well this is just the male gaze!" The theory does fall apart some. If you want a wider range of body types in media, don't use "the male gaze" as your rallying cry.

OP is right on the money. It does come from misandry, and it is used to demonize male sexuality. It's 100% ok to have sexy characters, it's 100% to not have them. Both are fine. Men reading this, there is nothing wrong with you. Take all the words of encouragement that women receive about their sexuality - this applies to male sexuality too. It's normal, healthy, ok, and even great to have sexual desire. The male gaze comes from the same place that microaggresions come from. >It doesn't come from misandry. It's the concept, originally from the author Laura Mulvey, that stories often view women only from the perspective of men. What they do, how they act, how they look, everything about them is boiled down to how it affects or is viewed by men. They're often treated as basically objects, with no real autonomy or goals of their own, their only purpose to satisfy male characters emotionally or sexually. It's a very real and common phenomenon, especially in 1975 when the term was originally coined. >>Again, if you want more media written for the female perspective, that's ok. But it doesn't make the male perspective bad. There is nothing wrong with it just like there is nothing wrong with the female perspective >>>It's crazy how "male perspective = bad" is what you gathered from that >>>>It's not even a little bit crazy. Read your comment again and how negatively it portrays the "male gaze". Mine is a completely normal reaction to that >>>>>I could read my comment a second time, but how about you read my comment one time? The problem is not that some stories are from the perspective of men. Nowhere did I say, or imply that. The problem is that media often views women ONLY in their relations to male characters in the story, not as independent characters, just accessories. That's what the entire concept of the "male gaze" ACTUALLY is. It's not rooted in some misandrist view that movies from the perspective of men are inherently wrong, it's the observation that a significant portion of media fails to portray women as actual people with their own goals and ambitions, rather than mere accessories to the male characters. >>>>>>Nice, go read my comment now for the first time where I said if you want more female perspective, that's cool.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/WatchPeopleDieInside/comments/1te4t4r/chudthebuilder_finds_out_his_initial_bond_is_set/

Context: Chudthebuilder is a nuisance/rage bait streamer, whose main schtick involves saying racial slurs at black people and then daring them too respond. Hes on trial for attempted murder because of an altercation he had outside the Tennessee courthouse, that he escalated into using his firearm. He tweeted his plans to engage in a fight with a black person in order to get away with murder. He also supposedly has a relationship with a black trans woman and crossdressed as a teenager

HIGHLIGHTS

If an African American approaches you looking for a conflict and you call them the N-word it’s your fault if they attack you. You don’t have a right to self defense. 300 years of oppression!!! >I had a stroke trying to read this, you should use AI to proof-read your ramblings

George Floyd is looking up right smiling 🙏 👊🏿 >Ah yes the great person and inspiration George hold up pregnant lady with a gun Floyd. >>I think the guy was being sarcastic when he said GF was ‘looking up’ as opposed to looking down. >>>You’re also buried facing up >>>>Yeah you are but the expression is about being in heaven or hell, it’s not people being buried and their spirit is still in the coffin smiling at us, like an eternity in a slowly rotting wooden box.. >>>>>Unless you’re atheist…

Literally no context from the post or the comments. Go fuck yourselves lol >This dude is a straight up racist piece of shit from Tennessee. >>Okay; cool. LINK ANYTHING WITH HIS NAME OR NEWS ABOUT IT. >>>https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=chudthebuilder >>>>Cool, have no name or context in order to google dumbass. >>>>>There is a name. It is the title of the post. Learn to function better in society. >>>>>>I mean there really isn't. The title is basically "dude finds out his bail is super high". No reason as to what he did to get that or if that is his name. Chudthebuilder just sounds like a reddit nickname they gave him because they don't like him.

I spoke to this guy right when he first went viral and had less than 10k followers. He is extremely troubled and I believe he’s suicidal. When I told him his antics would get him killed he said he expected that and does not care. He has a long history of abusing marijuana and growing up he was mostly in black communities and his friends were black. I wonder what happened to him to make him go down this path. >Heartwarming news: The one of the worst people you know is suicidal. >>I don’t want anyone to kill themselves. Once you start dehumanizing people you disagree with is when bad things happen. >>>It’s less about disagreeing and more about actively targeting, threatening, and in this case acting on hatred. If it was just some racist dweeb on 4chan I wouldn’t say the same thing about them. If you threaten the lives of others out of hatred, my empathy for you as a person disappears. There are limits to empathy. >>>>I understand what your saying, but to not care about the life of someone else because you don’t like them is exactly what he is doing, and I know that between me and you it doesn’t seem that way, but truly it would make you no better than him. Let’s hope rehabilitation is possible for him and everyone in the justice system. >>>>>I understand your empathic take however, I fundamentally disagree with the perspective that I’m doing exactly what he’s doing. I judge people based on their character, actions, and statements, he’s judging based on a generalized assumption of character for an entire group of people. There’s a pretty distinct difference there. >>>>>>You’re right about that, but he feels just as affirmed in his actions as you do about yours. Obviously me and you know you are right about his character but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t feel vindicated in what he’s doing. That lesson might not apply here because of the extremeness of the situation but we can take it with us in our lives. Everyone feels like they are in the right, even when they are in the wrong, ourselves included sometimes.

By the way Karmelo’s bond was lowered to 250k and he literally admitted to killing a guy. >Didn’t he fucking shoot somebody? >>Don't forget he shot himself too.. He's a damn moron. >>>That’s actually probably worse because homeboy has zero concept of gun safety. If he shot himself, he could have harmed anybody else who was present just because of his extreme negligence and ineptitude >>>>"Eatherly, 28, was also injured in an apparent self-inflicted injury, and taken to Vanderbilt of Clarksville Hospital for treatment. After his release, he was booked at the Montgomery County Jail."

He should claim insanity like the hundreds of criminals with mile long rap sheets do. They'll let him out the next day. 😂 r/woosh for you folks commenting and getting butthurt over nothing. >Im curious, what do you think happens when someone pleads Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity? >>who knows because that's how cooked our justice system is. >>>look into it. it's not like they spend the rest of their days in some fancy recovery rehab. You typically live out your sentence in a correctional mental health facility. It's a rough existence. >>>>Considering the amount of supposedly "mentally ill" people roaming the streets either homeless or committing heinous crimes, it doesn't seem like those facilities want to actually keep people there for long. Or at least the system not wanting to keep anyone of mentally ill status contained. >>>>>I'm sure you care deeply about the mental health of your fellow citizens >>>>>>i do, but im also someone suffering from mental illness as well. Have been around and still are around people with mental illnesses. some worst than others. Although not to the extent that many others in more severe conditions are, i still care. So don't project that bullshit on me.

Maybe unpopular opinion, but letting this guy out for $1 million is ridiculous. Either he should be in jail and shouldn't be allowed to pay to get out, or he doesn't deserve to be in jail and shouldn't be required to pay the million at all. There is no middle ground, except maybe if the crime is having stolen exactly $1 million from people and youre being forced to pay it back to get out. Letting people out on an absurdly high bail is how a (fictional) court ended up letting Lalo Salamanca, leader of a drug cartel, walk on a murder charge for "only" $7 Million. You can never know that this guy isn't Lalo Salamanca, so you should never allow rich people to get away with a crime. >Are you really referencing better call saul lmfao what the fuck man >>This is reddit, it’s all about making references in the comments. People don’t care what the post is about it’s just about knowing the same in things as other people for upvotes. >>>I also choose OP's dead wife. >>>>The cylinder must remain unharmed.

Sadly, Trump is going to pardon this guy so fast it’ll make your head spin. >Can't pardon state charges >>Honey, this is fucking Tennessee. We’ll probably name a road after him for this. >>>Very possible, that would be career suicide to pardon a convicted murderer but he's not allowed to run again so we'll see >>>>You'd think it would be career suicide to pardon J6'rs but here we are. We literally named roads here after Charlie. This guy will be a hero to half the state. >>>>>I really hate this timeline >>>>>>And sorry to be snippy. I'm just so tired of people saying "they can't do that" and "it's against they law" while they're actively doing the thing and the law isn't stopping them. It's hard to see hope.

He'll be holding someone's hanky and wearing kool-aid lipstick by the end of the first week. He'll make a fine prison wife. >So the joke is rpe is funny? >>Well yeah when the person is a waste of space. >>>Got it, so rpe is good when the person is a bad person, as determined by you, someone who is clearly a good person. That makes sense! >>>>Correct. He Fucked Around, and now’s he’s gonna Find Out. ;) >>>>>When you harass innocent people and spread hate and division against an entire group of people, you are a bad person. It’s absolutely pathetic how you’re trying to frame this guy as anything but a waste of oxygen. >>>>>>And bad people deserve to be r*ped. That’s your position, just to be clear? >>>>>>>He deserves worse but we’ll settle with that.

EDIT: added more context

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/1tazcjn/lupita_nyongo_will_play_both_helen_of_troy_and/

HIGHLIGHTS

This is the state of the world we are in apparently. Cannot ever critize casting choices anymore if it‘s black people. And the source material clearly describing here distinctly as not a black person. >Any disagreement involving different races is automatically rascism >>Except when it‘s about complaining that white people should have been casted as a different race. That‘s ok >>>That's actually undoing harms perpetuated for generations on minorities, idk why you're so rascist that you think people aren't waging wars for a 43 year old bald woman. >>>>"That's actually undoing harms perpetuated for generations on minorities" The white minority in the world, you mean? >>>>>White people are overrepresented in western media >>>>>>Black people are the most overrepresented people in American and British media compared to their population by a mile. Asians, and specifically, Indians, are the least represented followed by Latinos. >>>>>>>What metrics are you basing this on? And no, crappy Tyler Perry movies no one watches don't count.

You can take my ship. I'll wait here. >Are you guys just racist, or what is the issue here >>You can find her not attractive and not be racist? I personally also dont think she is well cast as the (according to myth) most beautiful woman in the world (and daughter of Zeus), but thats ofc entirely subjective and you mileage may vary. >>>You tell me. Is that what’s going on here? >>>>Yes Edit: beware: idiocy below. Ignore the idiot. Move on. >>>>>Nah >>>>>>It’s ok to be wrong. You are a prime example. >>>>>>>I missed the part where I’m wrong or proven as such >>>>>>>>I know. You miss a lot of things. (16 more comments of these two arguing)

You're right, I now love her and think she's amazing >I’m just confused about what the issue is >>I think she's a mediocre actor. But I think most people who get major roles in Hollywood are mediocre, with very few exceptions. Even actors who have good performances earlier in their careers tend to get bland over time, as the industrys/studios want people who can slot in to whatever production needs a "big name" on it. >>>What is bland or mediocre about her acting, and do you feel this way about others cast in the movie? >>>>I don't find her entertaining or engaging. And yeah, literally every single actor listed in the cast is dumb as hell. It's like a who's who of "this person was cast for their name not their acting ability". Matt Damon Tom Holland Anne Hathaway Robert Pattinson Zendaya Charlize Theron Jon Bernthal John Leguizamo Mia Goth Himesh Patel Lupita Nyong'o Elliot Page E: I don't know who Himesh Patel is though. >>>>>What movies have you watched of hers that led you to these feeling about her acting? >>>>>>12 Years a Slave, Us, and Black Panther. Although of those Black Panther was the weakest fwiw >>>>>>>You didn’t think she was engaging in Us? >>>>>>>>Not really? Like it was a pretty weak movie overall, so she didn't stand out as "awful" - she never does. She's just mid. But I've never seen a performance by her that made me think "holy shit, she's someone to keep an eye on for her next film". (22 more comments of these two arguing)

What politics are being charged with this casting? >race-swapping has always been politically-charged, especially there's a race quota you need to meet in order to get "best picture" nomination at the oscar. >>Race swapping who? The mythological woman who didn’t exist? And where are your sources for this Oscar voting criteria? The organization’s official standards and conduct? >>>https://www.oscars.org/awards/representation-and-inclusion-standards >>>>Did….did you even read the link you posted? Lmao I don’t think you understand these rules. You can have a movie cast of entire straight white men and be eligible for best picture. That “quota” you’re speaking about refers to everyone from actors to crew to fucking interns. If your entire production of 1500 people doesn’t have ANY women or minority representation that is very clearly an issue being perpetrated by pointed racism. You have to go out of your way to not meet two of those four necessary criteria. And somehow you still think that’s a bad thing lmao >>>>>no, it implies that there's a way for a movie to be nominated still without a diverse cast, it's a walk around. but i suppose it's easier to have a clored actor to free yourself from the burden of checking up a massive crew. >>>>>>"clored actor" lmao

Here come all the bros using “historical accuracy” to mask their racism. On topic: Lupita is great. This movie looks epic. >It's not really about that. She just doesn't have the look, plain and simple >>Helen of troy was borne from an egg >>>And what? She doesn't have the right type of beauty for the role. This isn't about race. If they cast Aubrey Plaza (who is very attractive) it wouldn't feel right either. >>>>Uh... What is the "right type of beauty"? >>>>>Read the book dude. She literally has a physical description. >>>>>>She looks like a boy in the previews. I don't know what else to tell you. If you're into that, then go for it >>>>>>>Sounds exactly like someone who all the Greek men want to fuck tbh >>>>>>>>That...is fair

Some people find race switching of this kind patronising. And some people find shoehorning in modern diversity sensibilities to be distracting in a historical story. And some people find historical inaccuracy disrespectful (to history, or to source material). You don't NEED to be racist to be any of those people. >There's a fucking cyclops in this movie. What the fuck do you mean "historical accuracy". This is a fantasy movie, not a historical drama >>The amount of people who think The Odyssey is a true story is seriously mind boggling >>>I don't think they were suggesting that the odyssey is a "true" story. But there is a source material that has existed for thousands of years. The fact you couldn't comprehend that is whats really "mind boggling". >>>>Let’s be real, you’re just mad that a black woman was cast >>>>>oh look... a redditor attributing racism to someone who disagrees with them on the internet... how original. Get a life bro. >>>>>>You’re obsessed lol. And yes, being racist gets you called racist. Who would have thought

I'm going to zag here, fuck the race talk: We're casting a 43 year old as Helen of Troy? Diane Kruger is literally only 6 years older than Lupita, but played her 20 years ago. Our politics are geriatric and so goes the rest of our culture. >Love that for you. Getting owned by the responses because you don't have a grasp on either of these famous stories' timeline, nor their characters. Lmaooooo. Get lost chud. >>Yes, the mythical daughter of Zeus should age the same as mortals. You're right. I'm so owned. >>>The mythical daughter of Troy did in fact age and die the same as mortals - because she was one. As were many of Zeus' mythical offspring. Doubling down was a... choice. Like it's okay to not know about the epics but you're being super weird about it. >>>>The internet is for doubling down. If you want to cite your Ph.D or hell, even MA in a related field, I'll shut up. Right now, we're both nobodies offering our uneducated opinions on our interpretations of Homeric epics. One of us is just being a lot more serious and vainglorious about it. Also "Doubling down was a... choice," is an incredibly cringy line to drop in a conversation if you're trying to be serious about this. This isn't a comedy bit. Yes, she was a mortal. Still a demigod though. Unless you think any scrub could have killed the Nemean lion, slain the Minotaur, or drown out sirens with their lyre playing abilities. >>>>>I see we've gone with tripling down. How thrilling.

You’re insulted by the casting of someone who didn’t exist? >“The Major” in “Ghost in the Shell” didn’t exist either >>What does Helen of Troy’s skin color or ethnicity matter to the plot of the Odyssey? IDGAF about the casting in a Ghost in the Shell movie in a fictional city either. >>>Asking such a question is more telling of you than anything else >>>>Yet you can’t answer it >>>>>Sure, Jan >>>>>>Again, how does the specific skin color or ethnicity of Helen of Troy drive specific plot action in The Odyssey and/or How is it incompatible with a white American playing Odysseus or every other character in this adaptation. Actually engage and tell me how I’m wrong. >>>>>>>My IQ is dropping just reading this. There’s plenty to drop from, but still >>>>>>>>I’ll leave you to your racially and religiously based porn.

They are only worried about “accurate” casting when it’s a person of color being cast. When it’s a white person being cast inaccurately? Absolute crickets. >Can’t wait for that MLK biopic starring Tom Cruise Obvious /s >>Why would it be a "/s"? It's on point. Either this street goes both ways or it ain't goin' at all. Edit: I am not going to answer each "But, but, real person!" comment individually. If this is your best argument, I think you already know it's weak tea. So you would be perfectly fine having Zorro being portrayed by, say, a Japanese actor? Or having Shaft being played by Bryan Cranston? Or Anansi by Steve Buscemi? No. You would throw a fit. Q.E.D. >>>I think MLK was a real person, hold on let me ask Grok >>>>Being real does not make you immune to race swapping in movies. See genghis khan and cleopatra and the cast of Hamilton. >>>>>What about Helen of Troy’s race matter to her character compared to Martin Luther King Jr.? >>>>>>Why is MLK being black more important than Helen white? Couldn't he be portrayed by any non-white, since his story is about social inequalities and not about skin color >>>>>>>Because Martin Luther King Jr. was a real person fighting for racial equality in a society where he had less rights than other people? That’s why you know who they are. This is like a parody of a social media post. Just say you don’t like black women instead of playing these games lmao You should genuinely be embarrassed to have written that.

Bad casting. >Baddie casting >>Here come all the basement dwellers downvoting me for having an opinion. >>>Could you explain why it’s bad casting then? >>>>Because there are at least 10 black actresses more beautiful than her. >>>>>I will admit, this is not where I thought you were going with this. >>>>>>Where did you assume I was going? >>>>>>>The general reaction to her casting and Zendaya’s has been borderline (at best) racism. So I think that’s why you got downvoted, people assumed it was where you were going. Instead, you just have an issue with this Black woman specifically playing the most beautiful woman in the world.

Why are there no Greek actors in the casting? Or does inclusivity only work for Americans? >Did you had this complaint for all previous Troy/Odyssey adaptations, or only to this one, for some mysterious reason? >>No one gave a shit back then. >>>No one really gives a shit now either. >>>>What rock have you been living under? >>>>>Idiot Redditors that pretend to be offended for attention care, but no one that actually matters. >>>>>>So you admit some people do care. >>>>>>>Sure, if you want to be an annoying pedant who can only takes things completely literally. >>>>>>>>No I just don’t like being gaslit.

I don’t get it. But if I question it, I’m racist. So whatever. Snow White 2.0 >she's obviously the most beautiful actress currently working, she definitely wasn't just cast because it's an easy W for the film politically and to drum up attention and clicks >>That’s why I said Snow White 2.0. I remember being on reddit and people downvoting each other and calling each other racist and saying how the movie would be fine. Well. We saw how that went. >>>Rachel Zegler was probably the best part of the Snow White live action. The problem was more the rest of the movie, mainly due to it being part of a trend of live action remakes. So yeah, a lot of the comments about Zegler, especially after the movie came out, had racist and sexist tones. There's a reason certain folks recently spent more time talking about her Met Gala dress instead of the Olivier Award she won for her portrayal of Evita on the West End. >>>>Please. When you do things like that to score political points you alienate people. Thats all this is 🤷‍♀️ I hope it does well, ultimately idc >>>>>Right, Disney chose an actress with a musical theater background and a Golden Globe win to play the live action version of one of their princesses solely because of DEI or whatever other nonsense you want to cite. There's no other reason, right? Honestly, do you think that a non-white actress is incapable of portraying a mythical figure? Were you offended by Disney using Black gospel music for Hercules? Did André De Shields performing as Hermes in Hadestown on Broadway cause you to have an aneurysm? There's a reason I find all of this race talk around casting to be in bad faith. >>>>>>Meh, they wanted the discourse thinking it would be good hype and it’s not. It never is. Safe choices are. Respect the OG material, always. I get it, history is sexist and racist. That’s sad. It makes you guys feel bad. But. Get this, that’s reality. Greek people liked her bc she was special and different. Everyone is tan from working and those who aren’t are…get this wealthy and it’s seen as a thing of beauty. I don’t decide this. I get it. It makes people sad. I’m not blonde and fair skinned either. I guess I should be sad that in history I would be average.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/SipsTea/comments/1ta0oz6/republicans_are_cheater_and_liar/

HIGHLIGHTS

Im confused, is gerrymandering bad now or good, can reddit please make up their mind? >If it benefits republicans it’s bad. If it benefits democrats it’s good. >>you are a dumbass speaking in bad faith. Democrats have pushed antigerrymandering laws, Republicans have opposed the >>>Feds don't regulate state elections. >>>>what does it mean to you when the president says they'll send an election integration army into every state for the midterms? >>>>>That he's in violation of the Constitution. >>>>>>if he is in violation of it then he's doing it right? >>>>>>>What? If the president interferes with state elections he's violating the Constitution. >>>>>>>>right. in order to be in violation of the constitution then he has to be doing something to violate it. meaning he is regulating state elections. the point i'm making is countering "feds don't regulate elections" by saying they do now because the right is allowing trump to literal send "election integrity armies" into every state.

Lol big mad they got stopped from rigging the system >As opposed to Republicans rigging the system >>Don't bother arguing with smooth brains. Anyone still supporting the Republican party has no morals, cares nothing about logic, etc. They solely support Republicans because they want everyone else in our country to be miserable and low IQ like them. >>>Anyone who isn’t voting left is seriously Hitler incarnate and r*pes puppies while drinking baby blood. It’s the truth because I said it.

Your country can be governed by a man who only got 20% of votes if the correct districts vote for him. Let that sink in >Lmao that’s not even close to true. Why make comments like this? Gerrymandering affects counties for house representatives. It has nothing to do with the Senate or presidential elections. This is middle school social studies class information. Let that sink in. >>They're obviously referring to the electoral college. >>>By that same logic the president can be picked by just 50 votes assuming only one person per state votes. Absolute insane comment >>>>It's not insane if you stop to think about things before reacting, you should try it. Now, if you want to go into silly territory you would only need 11 votes, not 50 like you claim. But can we just stick to a more plausible scenario where a reasonable amount of people vote? https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-presidency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote >>>>>My dude, my whole point is to stick to a plausible scenario. Whoosh. >>>>>>The article I linked is a plausible scenario. I honestly can't tell if you're playing stupid or plain stupid.

The state legislature broke the rules of their state constitution even after being warned several times by the state supreme Court but it's trump rigging it? There are myriad things to be legit mad about and this is not one of them. >We can be mad that all states are gerrymandered. Republicans started bending the rules first. Democrats also tried to bend the rules and let people vote and this happens. Rules for thee but not for me. Bottom line is we need a national ban on gerrymandering. >>Please elaborate how republicans started this >>>You should do some learning on this public information before asking others to do it for you. Go look at Ohio, Florida, and Texas, and LA for examples. >>>>Now do New England and the west coast. >>>>>Ah, yes, my two favorite states. New England and The West Coast. >>>>>>California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and New York to be specific do the exact same thing and call it progress. Both sides are in the country club we arent allowed in. They play us against each other so we dont know that. They all were on the Epstein list. Republicans and Democrats alike. >>>>>>>What do you mean ‘do the exact same thing’? The mad dash to redistrict is in response to actions taken by the Texas state legislature which were done by request from the President in order to gain an advantage in upcoming elections. The President is even attempting to punish republicans in states that refused to engage in redistricting. If you think that’s a ‘both sides’ issued then you are either a bad faith conservative bot trying to undermine progressive coalitions, or you are a child. >>>>>>>>Ahh yes, typical ignore the examples ive given of states that routinely redistrict to gain power at the expense of the voter base followed by insults. Both sides do this, republicans are doing it now, democrats did it in 2022 in illinois under biden. It’s the same thing and you are doing mental gymnastics so you feel right. Cope harder, we would be in a similar mess is kamala won too. Non of the elites care about regular folks and I find it hilarious you think any politician actually does care.

Both are cheaters lol >We’re not buying your both sides bullshit anymore. One side introduced a law to remove all gerrymandering in 2020. The other side (Republicans) unanimously voted against it. Then started passing new maps without asking their constituents or putting it to a vote. We’re sick of you guys shit >>When the Green party and the Republican party agree, the bill probably want as fair as you portray. >>>Green party isn't as far off from republicans as you may think. Jill Stein was backed by big gop money and last I read the green party lawyers are gop lawyers. Green party isn't green... and I say this as a native habitat restorationist who would love a truly green party to vote for >>>>To quibble, lawyers are whatever they get paid to be. And so are politicians I guess.

No party tells the truth >This is your response to hearing facts from one party lol >>You wont hear about democrat dishonesty on here by design >>>You must not be very active in this community. And again: This is your response to hearing facts from one party lol >>>>Reddit is extremely left leaning. And youre dishonest if you cant admit that >>>>>I see you're an idiot as well. First of all, reddit can be extremely left leaning (which it is), but specific subreddits can be rightwing or mixed as well. But it's very telling that: This is your response to hearing facts from one party lol. Seriously, do you even have any arguments specifically regarding this post or not >>>>>>Lol aw resorting to insults already. Someone's upset this isnt going how they thought it would >>>>>>>Oh look, no actual arguments. What a surprise lmao

image >Who voted to end gerrymandering? >>With a bill just to end gerrymandering? No one. Oh you’re talking about the bill full of a poison pills the Democrats knew the Republicans could never say yes to so that they could say see, see, they refused to pass it? Are you that politically naïve on how the corrupt process (on both sides) works? >>>"poison pills the Democrats knew the Republicans could never say yes to" Such as? I ask because I've seen some of these so-called "poison pills," and usually that means "we could never vote for an unambiguously good thing, because Republicans would be at a disadvantage!" >>>>Dems want to guarantee majority minority districts, which would give them a clear advantage >>>>>So in this case the general pattern of "we could never vote for an unambiguously good thing, because Republicans would be at a disadvantage!" specifies to "we could never guarantee representation to minority groups, because the rapmant bigotry in the Republican party would put them at a disadvantage!" >>>>>>It’s more that you’re giving special privileges to certain races. The dems could give a shit if rural areas are grouped with cities or if Italians or Irish Americans want their own districts too. >>>>>>>The special privilege of... political representation? That thing everyone is supposed to have, which some people have been systematically denied? And now that we're attempting to undo those decades of injustice, there's political backlash against the party that tried to disenfranchise voters? Cry me a fucking river.

Virginia’s gerrymandering was thrown out because they broke their own constitution rule. Now they want to change the Virginia Supreme Court age restriction from 75 years old to 54 years old to push their entire Supreme Court out, replace them with persons who will pass whatever they want. MAGA didn’t rig the Virginia system. But they’re trying to restack it because they didn’t get what they want >You mean like Ohio? Florida? Or Louisiana scrapping 40k votes just to gerrymander away black districts? >>Wasn’t Louisiana redrawing their districts due to repeated court orders at least twice before the SCOTUS ruling? Every time they drew one a court threw it out and they had to go back to a drawing board. Ohio and Florida are blatantly going against their own courts however. Likewise race shouldn’t be a consideration when drawing a district. As a non-Black minority, wouldn’t my vote be suppressed if they drew a district that favored black voters, not all voters? Likewise, wouldn’t it be more equitable to draw districts woth as even of a voter split as possible? Make everything truly purple? >>>Ohio and Florida are just following Californias lead. >>>>California is just following Texas's lead and they did it democratically with an off ramp >>>>>Texas redistricting did not go against their state laws, they were trying to comply with the federal gov. California redistricted on their own, and it shouldn’t have been able to happen until after the 2030 census. >>>>>>This is the funniest shit ever. Texas was just meekly trying to comply with the federal government. We all know how Texas likes to submissively suck the federal government’s cock. After all, their slogan is “Please Tread on me Daddy”

Call me a bad person but I feel 51% of people taking rights away from 49% of people is ridiculous regardless if red or blue do it >That's the Democrat position. But since Republicans refuse to outlaw or regulate gerrymandering, Democrats have to sink to their level to avoid being at a disadvantage. >>"That's the Democrat position." This is just fanfic to make yourself feel better. The republican party gets about 40% of the presidential vote in New England yet has 0 house reps. No one is above gerrymandering. >>>Yes, that's the second half of my claim "Democrats have to sink to their level to avoid being at a disadvantage". Now engage with the first half part of the claim. >>>>I'm confused about the "have to sink" part. Democrats are already on their level. There's no sinking. The first part (that's the democrat position) is something you made up despite plenty of evidence to the contrary to make yourself feel better. Its the democrat position with respect to republican majority states in the south. It's not the democrat position in Illinois or New England where democrats have gerrymandered away republican representation for decades. >>>>>Democrats have tried to pass laws to remove partisan bias from gerrymandering. When have republicans even tried to do that? Redistricting Reform Act of 2025 Redistricting Reform Act of 2024 Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act For the People Act Redistricting Reform Act of 2021 Redistricting Reform Act of 2019 Redistricting Reform Act of 2017 Redistricting Reform Act of 2016 >>>>>>But they didn't pass any redistricting laws, did they? Maybe if people like you didn't give congress so much credit for not accomplishing things, they'd feel more pressure to actually pass legislation. "Oh look, some democrats proposed a bill they knew wouldn't pass so they could get a photo op, my heroes!" Jesus, dude. That's pathetic.

Can we all admit gerrymandering is wrong? It doesn't matter who does it. The problem is that each side blames the other for what they both do. Usually, yeah, but they do it as an excuse. With that attitude, it will never end. >No, this both sides argument hasn't held up in a while. Only one side has been ramming their new maps through behind closed doors, while the other side is putting their proposed changes up vote. Only one side has unanimously voted to block real legislation that blocked gerrymandering entirely, multiple times, while the other party voted in favor of it. This isn't a both sides situation anymore. Dems will overtake both the house and Senate in November if both sides played by the rules. Republicans are carpet bombing these map changes through, and if Dems don't start doing it doo, Republicans would retain control of Congress, despite an overwhelming swell of voters wanting them out. >>40% of the northeast votes republican. How many house seats do they have in states such as Massachusetts? >>>You proved my point. You went straight to political tribalism. Attacking the republicans and blaming them isn't going to get their support. Presenting it in a bipartisan way and ignoring past partisanship are the only ways things will get done. >>>>It's a bullshit point that's not based on reality. I'm tired of seeing people post it whenever their side is playing games and they need to downplay it or act like the other side does it too, so its not really a problem. and I'm tired of people on the other side just going along with it, enabling it to continue. One side isnt playing by the rules, and alienating their entire voter base to do it. And in recent months, the other side has been forced to do the same thing, but is still going about it the right way, by letting the people of their states vote for the changes. Only one side has made multiple attempts to outlaw the practice entirely. One side unanimously voted multiple times to enable it to continue. Fuck, all the way off. >>>>>How is that working out for you? Any change in sight? Bills moving along? Didn't think so. Hey, go ahead and do the same thing over and over, and expect something different. Partisanship isn't working. The republicans are out cheating the Democrats right now. By your logic, the Democrats should continue doing what they are doing even though it doesn't work. I am sure that will work. >>>>>>The Dems literally tried to end gerrymandering and the republicans voted it down. And here you are "BoTh sIDeS!"

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Invincible_TV/comments/1t3kg9q/this_pngdragging_is_unreal/

HIGHLIGHTS

Genuinely looks better than a good portion of invincible >(OP) It looks worse than most portions >>Cope >>>(OP) Im right >>>>Cope >>>>>(OP) Why would i have to cope with being right >>>>>>99/100 people think you are an idiot >>>>>>>(OP) Source?

Bro is comparing a show from decades ago to a modern show made by a billion Dollar company. >(OP) Dc was worth billions in 1990 and what does the age have to do with absolutely anything in the world aside from the fact that invincible is putting out more content faster? >>"what does the age have to do with absolutely anything" Umm, the fact that technology in animation evolves over time?? Are you trolling or just genuinely ignorant? >>>(OP) Nothing rly matters but how it looks. Excusing a still image in one instance but not the other is disingenuous >>>>Okay, so you're genuinely ignorant. Got it. What year did the animation you posted come out? And what year did Invincible come out? I'm sure you can figure out where I'm going with this. >>>>>(OP) What difference does it make >>>>>>My apologies. It seems I overestimated your intelligence.

Bruce Timm vs Invincible is straight up hydrogen bomb vs coughing baby. What did you think you were gonna prove? >(OP) That bruce timm sometimes drags pictures and thats totally fine when thats how they fly >>you realize every frame was hand drawn right? >>>(OP) So what >>>>So you are wrong it's not dragging a picture. >>>>>(OP) Looks the same >>>>>>You may need glasses. >>>>>>>(OP) I like the invincible one more. I have 20/20 vision

I get what you’re saying but this show came out 20 years ago >Also it was hand drawn and didnt have a budget of 2.5 million dollars backing it. >>And at least the hair moves >>>(OP) Marks hair moves >>>>It flops between 2 set points sometimes and sometimes the flop goes against the wind its a choice I guess >>>>>(OP) image Hair does bounce back and forth in the wind its gets wild at some angles >>>>>>Is this your defense gif? This worse than the one in the post >>>>>>>(OP) It has the same amount of motion as the one in the post. You’re just pretending that it doesn’t. image He frequently has more than in the gif, that was just more fair. Acting like the animation is worse than it is doesn’t get you anywhere >>>>>>>>Yeah man same amount of motion for umm 1/6th the budget and the actual drawings look flat out better. Youre kinda proving my point for me lmao (33 more comments of these two arguing)

Bro really decided to dog on the golden age of Warner Bros animation to excuse Invincible not prioritizing its animation at all >(OP) If the golden age doesn’t look much better than invincible, what does that say about invincible? >>It was 25 years ago, man >>>(OP) So what >>>>Bruce Timm was a far better showrunner for animation in the 1990’s than Robert Kirkman is today— bar none— and to suggest anything else is laughable. >>>>>(OP) Invincible is a better show than the superman animated series. Thats my point. It actually has its priorities in order for what people care about and has better episodes, scenes, character arcs. Clark kent is less interesting than mark grayson and his moral dilemmas are never interesting. If you disagree you are within the small minority >>>>>>Yeah, it’s real convenient how you cherry-picked Superman instead of Batman: The Animated Series, Batman Beyond, or Justice League: Unlimited

Her hair are animated though, a multi million $ budget show like Invincible wishes it could have animation like that on their power point sliding pngs >There’s no wind in space. Edit: I love how triggering this is to people. Edit again: you people realize I’m not serious about “no wind in space”? This is why I say triggered. Not everything has to be taken seriously. >>The funny thing is that no one is even being triggered. They are cordially explaining to you why you're scientifically incorrect >>>Feeling the need to correct something is a form of being triggered. They could also have just ignored it >>>>Lol, no. Being open to correcting misinformation is not remotely the same as getting triggered. Many people genuinely enjoy sharing info about things with those that are seemingly unaware and it doesn't mean they were upset someone didn't know it. >>>>>That is if I was serious. But I’m not. >>>>>>The people who were sharing info with you had no way of knowing that you were joking because a lot of people don't understand things like inertia. It doesn't function well as a joke if it's indistinguishable from common ignorance, and It's always nice when people are able to correct misinformation without being rude or disrespectful.

? This still has more effort even, background and hair help sell the effect. >(OP) Marks hair moves plenty for it’s length and I’ll take invincible’s background work over this show ngl >>Supergirls hair, shadow and everything else has motion. Thats far better than some of the new era stuff. Also thats from over 20 years ago lol >>>(OP) imageYeah, just like this Don’t pretend invincible doesn’t have good stuff just because of a 2 seconds segment with the immortal >>>>This is from Season 1 when the animation was done by a different studio and was at least somewhat consistent. Though it still wasn't the best, just after this scene in the gif he comes closer to the plane then becomes a png that gets dragged away >>>>>(OP) I disagree with the notion that s1 looked the best. The best looking scenes in the show are in seasons 3 and 4. And i really liked the sequence of mark flying to clear his head before he sees thragg, I can’t really make a gif of it but its here i think it was one of the better looking flying sequences (even if there are some still images) and even comparing it to the full scene in the superman animated series the difference isn’t as astonishing as some people say >>>>>>There might be better moments in S3 and 4 but consistently S1's animation was better

Lame rage bait. Sorry a genuine criticism about Invincible makes you pick on a kids show from before you were born. Still looks amazing anyway. >(OP) Its not bait, this is a criticism of a show I watched growing up that looks extraordinarily comparable to invincible a good chunk of the time, marks hair moves like this pretty consistently, it just isn’t as long, and eves does move like this. >>You've done a poor job of it and shown you dont understand it. >>>(OP) I understand it well enough >>>>You don't even understand what a png is lmao, your post doesn't even show a static png no one cares about the parts where mark is flying and his hair is flowing as he moves, it's about the million other examples in invincible where it's literally just a sliding static png across the screen. This is also a huge part of why flying cartoon superheroes tend to have long flowing capes, because it gives more movement and makes the flight look less static. You have no clue what you're talking about. The most impressive thing about your entire post is that you managed to fully convey your ineptitude in a single 5-second gif. However, your comments manage to display that you have a strong ill-placed confidence in this blatantly incorrect knowledge, which is arguably just as impressive. >>>>>(OP) Theres like 3 examples maybe 1 minute long out of 30 hours of content that look fine. Thats why complaining about 1 minute feels so nit-picky when there are shows with bad episodes or seasons and their fans don’t complain as much because they aren’t as childish >>>>>>image

Why do invincible animation glazers always need to compare their series to 20+ year old series to have half a point? This isn't my first time seeing this, it's ridiculous. Any time I ask an invincible animation glazer what other animations they think invincible is comparable, it's always decades old examples. Y'all really should start realizing this does not help your point and only proves everyone else right. >Are you incapable of detecting a joke? They’re making fun of invincible animation >>They're hiding their thoughts behind the guise of a joke. They're clearly very bitter about this based on their frequent comments defending the animation Even if it were a joke, it's not a funny joke. It's more of a strawman argument than a joke, which makes it incredibly clear Op is bitter above anything else. >>>(OP) Im happy. Im the one guy not complaining ab the animation of the show. I like it. I like them both >>>>What you're doing is way worse. You're so bitter people have different opinions than you, that you make a post like this, acting like it's just jokes when you're really fuming about not everyone loving the animation quality. >>>>>(OP) Im the only one here thats actually happy about both shows lmao. You are much more bitter than me. It is just jokes. You are just bitter at who i am directing the joke at😭 >>>>>>You're making a joke because people have a different opinion than you, that's literally the point of the joke. Jokes like that don't come from anywhere except bitterness. The fact this is a joke you're making at all is proof you're fuming about the whole thing. You're still strawmanning by the way. People can have complaints and still be happy with the show. >>>>>>>(OP) I say i like the animation in invincible, everyone jumps me. Its everyone else with that issue >>>>>>>>People probably have an issue with you because you're treating people who disagree with you as unreasonable by making jokes at their expense. Who would've guessed if you're an asshole about your opinions people don't respond kindly

Her hair is actually animated plus their animating her reflection as well >image Hair✅ Reflection✅ Welcome back bruce timm (I know this is literally the pilot but still they usually do animate marks hair at least and I can understand not doing it for the immortal) >>You're using a clip from season 1? Arguably the best animated season of the show? >>>(OP) Very very arguably. Especially when all of the very best clips are in season 3 and 4 like without debate >>>>Isn't that the issue that people have tho? The inconsistency of animation in the later seasons, so you can have the best clips while simultaneously having some of the worst clips in the show? >>>>>(OP) The immortal clip didn’t bother me at all. He was looking down sullenly, not flying away dramatically. The ones people mention, i didn’t notice for the most part. Were people looking at marks nose when thragg was ripping off thaedus’ head? Why? I wasn’t lol >>>>>>Good for you for not noticing but, the clip of supergirl you posted has better animation than a lot of those bad animation moments from invincible. I immediately was able to notice the difference and you not being able to discern the difference doesn't really mean there isn't one.

leave the multibillion dollar company alone meme >(OP) You can criticize the company but it won’t change the gif I already posted >>Seriously are you 14? That's the only explanation of your posts and your attitude >>>(OP) I’m the only one here without a hostile attitude >>>>Youve been tweaking in the comments for 2 hours straight dude lmfao >>>>>(OP) Im happy tho >>>>>>Tweaking out makes you happy? You do you I guess >>>>>>>(OP) Im calm

Its funny to see someone make a meme to defend invincible's animation, but the example used is still clearly significantly better than what we got lol >(OP image Better✅ Significantly ❌ >>You may be the single biggest clown for this post and this comment. Defending a multibillion dollar megacorporation making a show in 2026 with a millions of dollars per episode budget with actual slop animation for an adult audience. And you're comparing it to Beautiful hand-drawn and painted animation from a 90's children's cartoon with significantly better composition. You could not have picked a worse example for a number of reason. Like holy shit...look at the gif there vs Supergirl flying...souless vs. soul. There's A 30+ YEAR GAP BETWEEN THESE. 🤡 It's actually embarrassing that you thought you had a point here. >>>(OP) I grew up watching the Superman animated series. I much prefer invincible. I like the backgrounds more, the action, I like the character designs and the way they are drawn. Its odd how hostile some people are at my opinion when the same people accuse me of hating their opinions >>>>"I grew up watching Superman. I much prefer invincible The way they are drawn" Respectfully, what the fuck!? That is an objectively awful take. Not only from an artistic standpoint but the writing, the voice acting, characterization, etc. Yeah people are hating because that's a shit opinion bro. 🚩 Your opinion sucks. You're free to have it but I'm free to say that it's tasteless and cringe. This show is a deconstruction of Superman, it's philosophically inferior just from that one core principle. What exactly is better about the action? The nonsense power scaling? The shock gore porn per jpeg? This is like saying you like the grey corporate McDonalds color scheme over the old McDonalds with the red roof. >>>>>(OP) “Objectively” “take” The writing and voice acting never stood out to me, never surprised me, and never really intrigued me. The voice acting is just not as emotional or mature. If you think all deconstructions are inherently inferior i envy your ability to stop thinking. Superman has been a stale uninteresting character for a while, he isn’t supposed to be something different and he shines in series focused on a group not just him. The action is better, regardless of anything but villains are less imposing when they have no real threat or stakes.

notice how she is centered in frame while the world around her moves? i wonder if that was an artistic choice made for some reason. >(OP) Yeah invincible does that stuff too, I wont say it looks better, but they are making 30 hours of content much faster than superman was made, also faster than any show out now, and I think this looks perfectly acceptable. It could look better, but I do not think it “must” image >>Fir every decent enough shot like this, there's 10 more shots like Immortal Flying back to earth, or Liu Flying towards Oliver. You're not making the point you think you are. >>>(OP) Thats not true at all. The bad moments are few and far between. Thats why people always use the same 3 over and over again. 95% of the time the show looks just fine >>>>My man, you've been using the same 3 scenes over and over again in the replies. There's been more examples of bad animation here than ones you used to defend your point >>>>>(OP) The good ones are longer with more attention and theres more of them, but ppl focus on the few others because they are jealous of the shows ratings

i know you think you're making a point but this just shows that this old ass animation was willing to actually give the character moving hair to sell the motion >(OP) Marks hair moves, its just not as long. Eves hair moves like this. Idk why ur js lying to me acting like the entire show is png dragging and not 1 total minute of the nearly 30 hours of content ur getting in a very short period of time jfc >>Hey, being this mad about a cartoon just because it has bad animation for its massive budget isn't healthy coping. >>>(OP) image Im the only one not mad. Evb else sees this and throws a fit. I like it. Call it what you want, I’ll take this over the superman show forever >>>>That’s not generally the one people have been making fun of >>>>>(OP) I mean this is literally just an avg sequence from the superman show, i would go as far to say this scene looked particularly well done. I was just poking fun at how people clip 2 seconds out of context and pretend that’s representative of the show >>>>>>No you weren’t lol >>>>>>>(OP) Yes i was >>>>>>>>Absolutely nobody believes you because clearly you weren’t. Don’t backpedal.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/SipsTea/comments/1sz4srs/the_footage_of_nick_fuentes_pushing_a_woman_who/

HIGHLIGHTS

Dont blame him at all. Incredibly inappropriate on her part to just show up to his private residence. >Humanizing nazis is a crazy take >>Nazis still have human rights whether you like it or not. I’m not cool with anyone doxxing others and showing up to their house to intimidate them. >>>You're right but people can't see past emotion to see it. If you carve out exceptions to rights for people you dislike, then congrats you are on the same level as the Nazis lol >>>>This has to be the dumbest thing I've read on the internet in a while. No, treating Nazis poorly is not the same as being Nazis. Are you kidding me?

I don't even blame him. >Don't worry, the police will. >>very intelligent 1% commenter >>>I looked it up. He did get arrested for this. >>>>Lmao no he didn’t. >>>>>https://www.yahoo.com/news/far-streamer-nick-fuentes-charged-215700137.html >>>>>>Did you even read your own article? It says nothing about arrested. https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2026/04/23/nick-fuentes-victim-says-no-proof-he-completed-community-service-drops-criminal-charges-for-civil-suit Edit: they were wrong so they blocked me lmao. >>>>>>>First charged, then arrested. Plea deal doesn't change that.

good. gtfo my property >I don’t want to imagine what you’d do to Girl Scouts selling cookies if you think knocking on someone’s door invited assault. You are one sick puppy! >>Touch grass kiddo. A girl scout knocking on your door is quite different than this. >>>Funnily enough, if you touched some grass, maybe you wouldn't be afraid of people who come up to your door. >>>>Kinda hilarious you don't see a threat of a god damn lunatic coming to your house after you were doxxed, with more friends in the car. >>>>>No, because plenty of people have a legitimate reason to come up to your door. So you don't get to just assault people for doing so.

didn't someone go to his house and try to kill him a few years ago ? I would probably react the same as him to be honest >If you think someone is trying to kill you then it's pretty dumb to open the door. >>Or because you have had someone come to your house to kill you before, when someone shows up to just mess with you and you know it’s just to mess with you, you take it really seriously and mace them and push them into the street. >>>Not exactly a good excuse. >>>>Defending your property and family from a trespasser isn't a good excuse to mace someone? >>>>>DeFeNdInG yOuR pRoPeRtY Hmm I must have missed the part where she was damaging property DEfEnDiNg yOuR fAmIlY If she's behind a locked door she is no threat. You know what makes her a threat? Opening the door. It's not trespassing to knock on someone's door. >>>>>>was she not harassing him? I thought she was

you’re allowed to knock on doors without being assaulted >it depends. >>Actually, it doesn't. >>>It does >>>>no it doesn't. Simply knocking on a door isn't cause for "self defence". Nick could have simply told the person to leave, closed the door then called the cops. he was perfectly safe behind the door in his house. >>>>>I am perfectly willing to accept that he exceeded lawful boundaries and I guess he plead down as some sort of compromise on the situation. HOWEVER and this is a big point, is she wanted trouble and she got trouble. There is a difference between legal ramifications and karmic ramifications. He got the former, she got the latter. >>>>>>[removed] >>>>>>>I generally dislike provocateurs and activists whether right or left wing. I have no idea what Fuentes says or does, only hearsay and I’m not his target audience. Wishing death is a tough personal weight I may add,

He's such a little bitch. >[removed] >>She deserved to be assaulted because she knocked on his door and said hi? >>>Excusing someone for showing up on someone's property to stalk them because she's a woman, feminist logic >>>>Please provide evidence is any of that. >>>>>Your comment >>>>>>That's not sufficient. You didn't gather any information to substantiate your claim. You've failed and you're therefore dismissed. >>>>>>>XD if being delusional helps you sleep at night by all means do so

Anyone saying she deserved it is a moron, sorry. There’s nothing illegal about approaching someone’s house especially if it’s accessible from a public street. Otherwise all those UPS and FedEx deliveries would turn into gun battles. Now is it a smart thing for her to do? Probably not, but he doesn’t get to just assault anyone who knocks on his door. Jfc >No. She deserved it because she got exactly what she came there to get. As evidenced by her saying “Did ya catch that?” at the end. C’mon. Fuentes is trash, but this lady is the personification of what people like him have been using as rage fuel for years. >>Meanwhile you strike me as one of the morons who regularly donates to rage bait live streamers, but since they're mocking minorities you agree with them >>>Damn, you’re a presumptuous and angry person. For someone who seems to advocate for physical safety you sure do espouse a lot of verbal attacks. >>>>Yeah, I see people advocating unprovoked assault, and it makes me want to agitate them. Hopefully to the point where their little pea brains will take that anger out in public and face accountability. You should see me in person, I would have you foaming at the mouth in no time. >>>>>So, do I have this right: you’re advocating against violence via attempting to goad people who disagree with you into violence so that they get arrested and can no longer be violent? >>>>>>Now you're starting to understand accountability. I get that you disagree with the concept. But, if my words make you so upset that you cannot control yourself, you are still accountable for your actions. Despite no one ever holding you accountable in the past apparently. I can't believe this is seriously a new concept to you.

Nick is a little bitch >I agree. He should have practiced his 2nd amendment right and protected his home instead of just shoving the trespasser. >>"it was so mean of her to show up and bother this guy :(((" but also "he should have instantly murdered her in delusional defiance of both the laws of the land and the laws of god >:)))" crybully gonna cry, that's why ya boy got served lol >>>He was doxxed and a stranger showed up to home. He wouldn't have any way of knowing what her intentions were. Its really messed up of you to downplay how stupid and dangerous that kind of behavior is. >>>>i'm not downplaying anything; you are the one who is downplaying cold blooded murder, which is both legally and morally what you just advocated for >>>>>If she would have tried to assault or even assassinate him you probably would be sitting there downplaying it. >>>>>>oh so now we're at the "making shit up" stage of the argument.

Good. I’d 100% support if he had used a firearm. Same if this was Vaush, or Hasan. >Do you also shoot door to door salespeople that show up uninvited? What we talking about here she knocked on the door >>We all know why she was there >>>What's your hypothesis cause all I have is a 10 sec video >>>>She’s a lefty who’s clearing getting ready to harass and film him >>>>>Appeal to probability. You don't know that. She could be a huge fan of his Nazi takes. >>>>>>Yeah right sure 😂

I hate this guy… but yeah if someone came to my house to mess with me I might not be as nice as he was. >And in return you'd be charged of a worse crime than he was >>Eh, his reaction was logical and justified. Incurring a punishment is well worth it. >>>How was it logical or justified?If he thought she was a legitimate threat, opening the door and exposing himself directly to that threat is in no way logical. How in the world do you justify this? >>>>They don't know what words mean. By "logical" he means "its what I would have done" >>>>>Which they likely wouldn’t have lol

I don’t see a problem with what he did. I hate the guy, but if someone shows up at your door after you’ve been doxxed with her camera recording you to publish online she deserved it. >It seems highly disproportionate to push someone onto the ground for showing up at your door. The human skull is fragile, people can and have died from being pushed to the ground. Especially risky when it appears to have been from a higher elevation (note the steps). If she had cracked her skull open on the pavement, or suffered a TBI, the criminal proceedings would have gone very differently for the defendant. >>When youre a controversial public figure and you know you were doxxed and someone shows up with a video camera in your face at your home she should have expected his reaction. People that do stupid shit win stupid prizes. >>>Does "stupid shit" include being a Nazi influencer or is it just everyone else? I mean, if he wasn't who he was then no one would be showing up at his door. Wanna be a controversial piece of shit? You might end up with people really disliking you. Sounds like his prize exactly >>>>For me, yes being a Nazi influencer” is “stupid shit”. But for others, being a “Hamas sympathizer” is stupid shit. You think it’s perfectly grand that people just show up at people’s houses, record them, be violent to them because they don’t believe like you do? They should be praised or forgiven because the guy they attacked supports Hamas? No, it’s not ok. >>>>>What violence did you observe here from the woman using one or both hands to record someone with her phone? Please enlighten me. Or just admit your brain is so warped you can't help but defend your favorite political influencers.

It’s not illegal to ring someone’s doorbell.. >He recently was doxxed. I garuntee she is not the first nor the last to knock on his doorstep. Was he in the right? No. Was she in the right? No. She went there to intentionally be annoying to this guy. >>You're allowed to be annoying to people. You're not allowed to mace and assault people for being annoying. You're esepcially not allowed to mace and assault someone because some else annoyed you earlier in the day. >>>Harassment is literally illegal. Again I never said he was in the right. He is not. But she isnt either. >>>>I didn't realize ringing a doorbell and saying hi is harassment lol yall must be getting straight up abused out there >>>>>It is after the 8th time it has happened. Which is what happens when your doxxed. This dude is a piece of shit. And he is dangerous, as shown. So why the fuck are we going to his house and ringing his doorbell? Thats fucking stupid. Yalls hatred for this man is blinding yall to real facts. That was stupid of the woman and illegal of the man. He is already known for anger issues and most likely has been dealing with idiots all day. This was fucking stupid of that lady to do. "What if I poke this bear that I definitely hate and definitely hates me >>>>>>Ok so its not illegal to be stupid.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/helldivers2/comments/1t00a5y/yall_are_actually_ruining_this_game/

HIGHLIGHTS

This game has been on a slow and painful decline since they started gatekeeping content behind paywalls. >Broke or Lazy, pick a struggle. >>More like Simp for AH or turn a game from fun to work. >>>Oh so you’re skill gapped too. Expected. >>>>^ Found the Simp >>>>>^ Found the loser Can’t aim, too cheap, entitled too. Trifecta of whiner. >>>>>>A simp calling someone a loser is peak. >>>>>>>Says the loser calling someone a simp. What even is this argumentation?! >>>>>>>>Idk I posted a controversial opinion and the die-hard bootlickers have been bombarding me non-stop.

Its a chaff enemy. >[image](https://preview.redd.it/b6xj612lpcyg1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8d4c2f66e8828c6467b9e0c3dd78fa754428fec8 >>Its not even logical for a charger and a hive guard to have the same armor stats. Freaking autocannon wasnt doing full damage to it. >>>Have you tried not shooting at the very obvious armor plates? >>>>Try not shooting at the very obvious armor plates while getting swarmed by 20 more of those bastards >>>>>If there are 20 of them then you use an orbital or Eagle >>>>>>Which then proceeds to kill both them and you, because youre swarmed by them. >>>>>>>Have you tried not getting swarmed? I hope this helps. >>>>>>>>How can players be expected to kill enemies AND position properly?

"Y'all would review bomb a cheeseburger because it didn't have chicken." >What if I ordered a chicken sammich and got a borgar? >>Well, you should have read the menu where it said "we don't sell chicken sandwiches, everything on this menu is a burger." Seriously, buying a game and then complaining because it doesn't have features it never said it had is exactly like ordering off menu and complaining when you don't get chicken instead of a burger. >>>I’d argue that’s what adding heavy armor to a chaff enemy is. No bug diver was playing bugs because they wanted to care about aiming like they have to on other fronts. They ordered a burger but AH threw in a chicken sandwich and was surprised when people didn’t get what they ordered? >>>>It was always meant to be the less common heavy chaff enemy, and now that it actually was you all cried about it instead of learning to, you know, aim in an FPS. >>>>>Except it was a common chaff enemy? As well on the aiming thing, so what? Say I’m trash at aiming and I enjoyed having a faction where I didn’t have to at all? Shouldn’t I be allowed to complain when the burger I’ve had since launch is becoming a chicken sandwich? Why can’t I complain about that? If I wanted to worry about weak points, couldn’t I spend time on the bot or illuminate front instead then? >>>>>>It wasn't just a common chaff enemy. It was always intended to be the heavy chaff enemy. The tougher variant of the common enemy type, and now people whine because that's what it was. It doesn't matter that it was still easy to kill with minimal effort, apparently no effort is all people can be bothered with. The bug faction doesn't exist solely for you, or solely for people who can't aim, or don't want to. Whining that something isn't what it was never intended to be is a waste of both our time.

Whinedivers at it again... >ok glazer >>Sorry youre trash at the game >>>Anyone who complained about the hive guard change genuinely does deserve to be called trash. No one who's good at the game would be complaining about that. Probably the most obvious skill issue in the history of Helldivers >>>>I watch BackgroundGaming’s videos on YouTube and he’s by all means, pretty damn good. It was sad when he was going over patch notes and literally said that the Hive Guard change was terrible because it incentivizes players to not have build variety. I was literally like omg man not you too :( I would never in a million years change my loadout because of a fucking hive guard Edit: To clarify- I meant that he was upset because people are going to use the same stuff over and over. Which for one, is fine man. Who cares if people like what they like. I understand some things don’t get used because they aren’t viable but that’s a different story. My view is that regardless of this change, whether it was kept or not, doesn’t fucking matter. It’s the biggest nothing burger I’ve seen anyone get upset about in a long time

Hope AH are paying you for that amount of glaze. >(OP) If you hate AH don't play their game, simple as. If me saying I enjoy the game is glaze you should get your head checked, don't play games you don't enjoy >>You're the one acting as if AH are a poor indie studio trying to upkeep a F2P game. AH aren't the perfect angels you make them out to be. It's weird to be this protective over a multi million dollar company that sees you as nothing but a money bag. >>>(OP) They're really bad at treating me like a money bag, they've only gotten like $60 total from me since launch. I don't think they're a poor precious baby to be defended, I just want to see the game they'd make without losers filling their diapers every time an enemy is anything less than an armorless blob to mag dump into >>>>Most people see HD2 as a horde shooter and not a milsim. AH's "vison" doesn't work. Whenever AH tried to make this game in their vison in the past people got mad and clearly AH has to backtrack because most people don't want HD2 to play like a milsim. If you don't think they're a baby to be defended then why make a post paragraphs long defending them and expressing annoyances that an enemy got nerfed? I don't like how AH have handled this game at all. Half baked systems, inconsistent content releases, boring in game rewards. and lack of interesting balance updates. I like this game but there's only one way that Arrowhead will listen and that doesn't involve throwing money at them and asking nicely >>>>>(OP) My post is also a criticism of AH, they shouldn't have listened to a bunch of entitled babies >>>>>>Then why did you listen to them enough to rage on Reddit and act just like them >>>>>>>Because it's actually affecting the game I'm playing can you not read

holy yikes. Touch some grass and get a reality check please >image You're the one simping for a multi million dollar company lmao. >>How old are you? Genuinely, just saying random shit and posting edgy memes isn't making you look good mate. Nobody is simping for shit and you can feel as much Reddit blood flowing through you as you want. The fact you seem utterly unable to hold a normal discussion already shows your mindset >>>"A normal discussion" What discussion is there to be had when you didn't comment anything worth having a "discussion" about? lmao >>>>I judged his entire comment chain here buddy

100% valid. The loud minority wins again. Take my upvote against the incoming tide of downvotes. >Loud minority?? >>Yes. The majority of players just play the game >>>You think a portion of them aren't unhappy about the hiveguard changes? >>>>Aren't unhappy? So happy? >>>>>Can you read? >>>>>>You said aren't unhappy. That means happy. I'm just genuinely asking if that was your intended word choice. What happened to good faith discussion >>>>>>>It was a rhetorical question. Let me put it this way... if we take 100% of the playerbase, only a small portion will actually be vocal online. Of the silent portion, majority will still have an opinion on various changes. For every 1 player online saying they don't like the change, you can assume there are hundreds of silent players that also don't like it. And same goes for the other side And seeing how Arrowheads own discord full of yes-men didn't even like the change, it's safe to say we're in majority this time around.

Post this on helldiverunfiltered and watch them throw a tantrum >At this point both sides are throwing tantrums. One side wishes to hellbomb the update which clearly isnt the worst on the table. The other side refuses to see the problems in the very same patch and shits on the first side as a response. No valid conversation is possible right now. Just wait until kids have stopped sweating over the keyboard and the shitstorm is over >>No, no, we see the problems. AH said they'll look into it. But what is shitting diarrhea all over the game going to do for any of us? >>>It would only result in us eating shit, and since we have two radicalised parties, the amount of that smelly staff doubles. And I rly can only blame AH for that. No testing, no normal feedback (that AMA rly added some fire). What they are doing now should ve been done on beta servers, tested there and then changed to something in the middle... But why bother? Lets just upload untested changes to a public servers and escalate the whole thing >>>>Are you seriously accusing us of being on the same level as these people? image >>>>>First - not everyone. Second - By the amount? No. Individually? Hell yeah I do. >>>>>>First - Y'all got a whole movement going on. You don't accidentally make a whole movement of trying to destroy a game. Second - Amazing. You are a radical centrist. I didn't know! >>>>>>>Im not a part of that movement, I have better things to do than wasting my time on review bomb. Second - I specifically didnt include you into this category, because I dont know you and I dont know how you react to this. Which, in return, you just have done to me. So now I can clearly say, that you are a good example, thank you.

You’re going to get downvoted to hell but you’re absolutely right. >(OP) Yeah, probably. I also got demolished when I said I missed when you couldn't headshot chargers, I'm used to the various subreddits disagreeing with me >>as you should this is a terrible idea becuase all it does is encourage 4 man Recoiless riffle games just like the war strider, the games enemies should encourage variety in builds not restrictions. Same thing with the current hive guards, it encourages players to only use explosive primaries. >>>(OP) You obviously didn't play at launch. You used to have to strip the charger leg armor and kill it that way, one person strips the other mag dumps. Takes 1 second to do, no need for everyone to bring RR or eats, just need to coordinate as a team in the co-op game lmao >>>>did you forget the railgun? >>>>>Only basic bitches used the railgun, they also kicked you if you did not bring railgun and shield. Thank god they got nerfed >>>>>>Didn’t experience kicking but I remember watching a dude struggle on the Hoth planet to kill flanking hulks with his railgun and bubble on old diff 9, meanwhile I popped a whole patrol and reinforcement call flank with just my amr and dmr

Piss off mate. Games supposed to be fun not fcking torture >(OP) So you piss off and to play a fun one. I'm having fun here. If you're not, go fucking elsewhere >>You're here complaining about the complainers' complaints actually working and making them revert the change. It doesn't sound like you're having fun here mate...

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/freefolk/comments/1syx7av/thoughts_on_this/

HIGHLIGHTS

BS. People are not mad because of inclusivity. People are mad about shoehorning black characters and changing things in such a way that it affects the story. There are some character's whose appearance is important to the plot. Velaryons and targaryens are such characters. Making them black retcons the history and ruins the immersion , especially when you know that this change is not made to improve upon the story but added for political correctness.............. >Sounds like you should go for a walk bud and repeat to yourself "It's just a show, I should really just relax" >>I hope you do that when they make this a reality Ryan Gosling as MLK biopic poster >>>One's a real person and the other one's made up but sure that's exactly the same thing. Good job bud >>>>i thought it would be "just a show" take a walk buddy youll feel good >>>>>I'm not the one posting multiple paragraphs and getting riled up about a fictional show. >>>>>>but you clearly were vested enough to read through all that and reply. So take your own advice. walk away from the phone/pc and go out, touch grass >>>>>>>I'd give you the same advice but you've clearly got your hands full posting manifestos online everytime you see a non-white person on a TV show. Keep fighting the good fight h*nkey!

Because it doesn't make sense in context? image >in what context? >>The context is that in the books it's seen as more rumor than fact that Rhaenyra's children are bastards. In the show when you change the ethnicity of the Velaryon it makes it clear they are bastards. >>>Mixed race kids come out white or black or whatever all the time. It’s not always a perfect blend of colors >>>>I didn't say it's always a perfect blend but it's almost always a blend meaning you can tell that both parents aren't white which makes it obvious in the show that the kids are bastards. That's a big difference from the books. >>>>>Actual twin sisters. image >>>>>>A trained racist could immediatelly tell that the left girl on the bottom is mixed

It just doesn't make sense genetically. I did love his portrayal, but the point still stands. >There. Are. Fucking. Dragons. You're arguing science in a world where dragons are real and a teen girl killed an ice zombie with a magic dagger. >>image Ol' faithful, you people are hopeless. >>>Although in this SPECIFIC story it disrupts the plot about Rhenera’s children. Using this argument elsewhere (like LOTR) is really stupid. A black person only feels out of place because we have whitewashed history. Even medieval Europe had some black people. And when creating entire fictional WORLDS it’s honestly kind of weird to make all of them white. So no, they’re not as disruptive as a fucking car you smug weirdo. >>>>Claiming history is whitewashed is the last resort for someone trying to justify diversifying a place where there is no evidence of the levels of diversity they want to show. If you want to depict more non whites in history an fiction then depict their history. If you must depict western history (or western isnpired fiction) to cater to a white audience, for whatever reason, then you really have to take an honest look at what your motives for diversification are. At certain point your own ideology is all that remains. >>>>>But it’s fantasy not history and history was not 100% white even in Europe, although yes, they weren’t common. So I was saying, comparing say Black people to including a car as being immersion breaking is just gross. Now I do concede that in specifically this story turning specifically this family, black disrupts specific plot points. I just don’t like the car analogy because it’s too broad and is acting like non-white people are weird.

Has anyone seen any actual “backlash” from this? >Just look at the other comments in the thread??? >>I was talking about actual humans with real lives, not Redditors. >>>Sorry to break this to you buddy but online is the real world nowadays. >>>>Whatever bot. >>>>>I love you, stay this way please.

I'm not sure which comments he is referrring to. But I think that he dumbs them down to make a point >This is the only thing I don't like about reddit. Its an echo chamber. There are a LOT of criticisms on black actors being cast in roles people think they shouldn't be in outside of reddit. Like its bad. Really bad. And more common of an opinion to have than you think >>But are the comments about how the character is rich or about how the character fits in a setting based on medieval Europe? >>>Man would you be upset if someone could get a camera back to medeival Europe >>>>You would not find black men among the nobility of medieval Europe. >>>>>More likely to find them than find a city of half a million people. Like I just think it says something when that's the anachronism people are getting all upset about

Never heard one person complain about that about this show. Ever. >Where were you when they announced the valeryons would be black lol >>Was that people mad they were rich? Or just mad about race swapping? >>>Are you really just focusing on the rich part? >>>>Moral of my comment is that it was a stupid thing for him to say because me personally have never heard a person say “I can’t believe the black guy in house is the dragon is rich, that’s ridiculous” >>>>>He’s clearly trying to be funny about it/dumb it down it’s only stupid if you take him extremely literally >>>>>>Oh thanks for clearing it up. He’s lucky he has random Reddit dude to make sure we all know what he meant to say >>>>>>>Yea what would you do if you continued taking him extremely literally so you can pretend you don’t know about the fuss everyone made about his casting amiright

The show sucks. But that has nothing to do with the Velaryons being black. Corlys was one of the better characters in season 1. >A little something? I mean the race itself doesn’t matter, but changing the characters doesn’t deserve any criticism? >>So the race doesn’t matter… but you’re criticizing the race? >>>The race that they chose doesn’t matter, but changing it all is what deserves criticism. Hope this helps >>>>But what besides the race did they change? >>>>>What besides this insanely specific part of the genetics of these characters did they change? Bro I don’t care, all I want to know is why they did it? Do you know, because I don’t >>>>>>For someone who doesn’t care about the race, you seem pretty invested into the genetics of it all >>>>>>>Do you really not understand that I don’t care which race they chose, but that they chose a different race period? And will you really not say why they did it? Is this is a Facebook thread? Actually say things or just stop replying

This is good but it’s weird that you draw the believability line at diverse hobbits. You don’t have to use real world explanations for why the community is racially diverse. They’re hobbits. Race isn’t a concept there >I didn’t “draw the line” there, it was just the most egregious example I can think of pertaining to this matter. What do you mean when you say race isn’t a concept there? Are you implying that hobbits are not subject to genetics and can basically pop out any combination of different races regardless of parentage? >>I mean, if you want to be that simple, yea. They’re hobbits. They’re 3 foot tall humanoids with extra large, hairy feet that live in holes in the ground. Why are you applying real world genetics to fantasy creatures? That’s weird. Race literally isn’t a concept there. >>>Because despite their unique stature and characteristics, they’re still based on real humans and played by humans. Why would they not follow the same rules? >>>>Because they’re fucking hobbits. Is there some book on hobbit biology that says they only have to come in one race? As far as you me or anyone else knows they pop out the womb a variety of skin tones. It’s weird that you can accept them being hobbits but not a variety of skin tones. And as far as them being played by humans, who else would play them? >>>>>Common sense does yeah. If you want to have weird or wonky rules for biology that’s perfectly fine, but it needs to be explained. If two dragons mated and laid an egg and a hobbit hatched from it, I would have several questions. And if the story never explained why that’s the case I would be confused even more. As I said, biology isn’t something that’s usually tampered with. Everyone has noses, everyone breathes, everyone sees with their eyes, everyone reproduces sexually, and has children that look like them, just like we do in real life. The rule in fantasy is that everything operates under the rules of our real world unless explained otherwise. >>>>>>No, you need it explained. I don’t need it explained because racial diversity doesn’t matter to me in a world where hobbits exist. It’s not about “common sense”. Common sense is they’re hobbits, why does their race matter? Also the biology of a hobbit has already been tampered with. Hobbits aren’t real. They don’t exist on earth. Neither do dwarven people or elves. There biology compare to a humans is completely different. If I can accept their existence I don’t need racial diversity explained. And it’s telling that your example here is dragons giving birth to a hobbit as if racial diversity is on the same level as a completely different creature giving birth to another.

It had to be Velaryons though as the only other "foreign" house. The other place where it might make sense would be Dorne but they don't play any part in the Dance of the Dragons events. >yes, but y does it HAVE to be anyone, why do we HAVE to have diversity in media. Especially when it doesn't make any sense in the narrative >>Why do people HAVE to make a big deal about a completely innocuous decision? Why does it HAVE to be questioned why black people exist in a made up world? >>>[deleted] >>>>The show is a different world with different rules from the book. Update your view of the world with the new material. It’s that easy. No matter the character, you all find a problem with it. Can you name a single character that is racially different that you are ok with? It’s just clear that you don’t want black people in your fantasies at all >>>>>Nettles is black. People wanted to see her. Dorne is basically North African/Moorish Spain inspired. There are islands in the south that are basically pure black. Hell, Aegon IV has kids that come out black because he had an affair with a black captain lady. You're just daft. >>>>>>[deleted >>>>>>>Yeah, because you have no argument. If you want to create "diverse" characters, make up your own narrative. No one will complain then. Oh, wait. I forget. You guys literally can't. So instead you have to hijack other people's works to sell your shitty ideas.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/invinciblememes/comments/1sv74zd/eve_did_absolutely_nothing_wrong/ HIGHLIGHTS

I'll be honest, and this is somewho who never even considered abortion not being a thing, like very pro choice (not american). I really hate the whole this show isn't for you comments I see sometimes, like right now. If it's really the only issue, then just sort of hating eve for this is fine. Many characters do things I don't like too, it doesn't make me hate the show >No it's not fine, and that's the problem with the world. We let people with opinions like that be heard. We let trash, garbage people who want to control others have a voice. It's not okay to hate eve for this. It's not okay to be against abortion. If you are against abortion for any reason, you are a bad person. Period. And your opinion should not matter. >>I'm pro choice but what you're describing is authoritarianism. People deserve a right to speak even if what they say is stupid. >>>No, they don't. Racists, sexists, homophobes, pro life, and anything else of the sort do not deserve a voice. Period. They don't value life, so they don't get the courtesy. People letting them have a voice is exactly why the world is the way it is now. Unless we get rid of those viewpoints and values, humanity will fizzle out on this rock, killing each other until nothing is left. Turning the other cheek allows them to slap the other. Being the bigger person allows them to make you fall that much harder. And letting them have a voice hurts the whole of society to it's very core. >>>>Sounds nice until it's your opinions that start getting banned >>>>>They already are haven’t you been paying attention >>>>>>Okay explain what you're on about >>>>>>>People are getting arrested for speaking ill of Netanyahu, saying “cisgender” on twitter gets you banned, Trump used the FCC to try to fire Kimmel for a very lame joke and they actually got Colbert cancelled successfully. And now that the Trump aligned Paramount owns Warner Brothers they are going to control CNN. Free speech hasn’t been a thing for a while now, and the other user is right. We tolerated the intolerant and now tolerance is dying out.

“Removed a clump of cells” bruh >That’s what it is little cumling sorry to burst your bubble >>That's why people don't take this seriously. Cause you people treat it like it's a meaningless thing you do. But it's really something women struggle to go through. Calling it a clump of cells makes todays woke women comfortable? Uhuh, mental gymnastics. >>>That is what it is tho, its an apted description. It has no developed organs or ability to think or feel. Yes I believe this mentality helps, because alot if the guilt is carried over from people shaming others when they make choices like these that really arent shameful. >>>>And then be mad at people who don't care about women who abort "a clump of cells"... aborting is a delicate matter. Women are rather confused by this shit. Why would it be such a hard choice if its just that? Because it ain't not fucking clump of cells. >>>>>It absolutely is just a clump of cells lol, you’re not winning this by getting mad about it

It’s a shitposting sub so I won’t even engage with the clump of cells logic here >making this comment is engaging with it lmao >>I said the logic, not the post itself, learn to read >>>Aww, the baby is getting grumpy >>>>At least the “baby” can read 😛 >>>>>You’re not even a baby, just an annoying clump of cells. Can we get rid of you too? 🤭 >>>>>>Maybe, but I probably stand a chance against a whole bunch of fat Redditor

Anyone pissed about what Eve did literally just "The Boys" themselves again. Clearly Invincible isn't for you if pro-choice ideas upset you. This show ain't for the misogynist who want to control the women in their lives. Edit: typo >So only misogynistic pricks see babies as babies? You can call it a clump of cells, you can call anyone a bigot that doesn't agree with you, you can do these things because you've been given the agency to think. But to say just because someone sees a fetus as a living being and not just a bunch of cells that apparently makes them immoral control freaks? Now you're being an asshat. >>The only reason that clump of cells could be considered a human is if it had a soul. And I don't believe in those. Otherwise it's just a potential human, and we stop potential humans from coming into the world every time we put on a condom. >>>And what it is it then ? A dog ? A cat ? “Potential human” lmao . So a human zygote and a human egg each containing human DNA can create potentially something other than a HUMAN 🤣 >>>>Is it a human if it hasn't finished developing yet? If it is, then a bowl of flour, sugar and eggs is a cake >>>>>Yes it is a human by definition want it or not

"Clearly Invincible isn't for you if pro-choice ideas upset you. This show ain't for the misogynist who want to control the women in their lives." A subtle hint was Omniman and Mark also murdering people. This show isn't for the misandrists who want to tell Omniman what to do with his very own hands (like not murder people). >A clump of cells is not the same as thousands of people. >>Everytime a man ejaculates he kills millions of potential people >>>Not even, the sperm doesn't last forever in the balls, men kill millions simply by existing >>>>Sperm is just a fertilizer with half of DNA, it is basically a delivery truck carrying half of DNA to the egg then DISSOLVES, it has ZERO potential to become a human. The EGG is what grows into a baby when fertilized. Each egg is a potential human, going by this logic ovulation without getting pregnant is murder. So women kill millions of potential babies simply by existing >>>>>Ohh dang it and u were half way there . An egg cannot grow into a human without fertilization . Nobody is killing anybody since egg and sperm contain half of the genetic material and half isnt enough to form a human zygote. I dont understand how you could get the first part right but completely fumble on the egg 😔 >>>>>>Actually, it IS possible to make babies without sperm via cloning but a sperm will NEVER become anything without the egg cuz it lacks in cytoplasm and other cell machineries and is NOT capable of dividing The point is, the EGG has potential to become a human, not the sperm. >>>>>>>The egg has no potential to naturally become human without a fertilizer literally. As for the egg cloning u mentioned those are not categorized as human since they lack the blueprint required for life , they are different from a natural formed zygote . Not to mention they stop growing unlike zygotes

Except invincible isn’t “pro-choice” in the way you seem to want it to be. Eve isn’t ever unrealistically justified and pampered for what she did, and its made clear that it was a mistake made in extreme circumstances. It’s up to the audience to decide the ethics of Eve’s abortion, the show doesn’t really make that decision for you. >eve's abortion isn't represented as 'a mistake', lmfao. mark was gone for half a year, she had no certainty the baby would have a father. >>So killing a baby is the next thing because there is no assurance the baby would have a father >>>If you consider it a baby the second someones sperm fertilises an egg then sure, most people don't though >>>>"most people don't though" reddit brained >>>>>its not a reddit thing wtf most countries have legal abortion you're in the minority in the real world brother >>>>>>Most actual scientists would argue that its a baby from fertilization. The argument comes down to when that baby is actual worth preserving or if the mother should be prioritized. Edit: not a baby as it isn’t a medical term, but they would, or at-least should, consider it a distinct living being, which is the point of my comment. >>>>>>>that's not true. scientists agree it is a human life, not a baby. it is scientifically an embryo then a fetus, not a baby until it is born. it's a pretty simple debate as abortion isn't killing the embryo or fetus either. it is the forced expulsion of it. If it could survive on its own then it would, but it can't so it dies. There's no way to classify this as murder when: 1. it's not sentient, 2. bodily autonomy means you don't have to give something your resources even if they could die without them. Even when we're dead we aren't forced to do this, you have to opt in for your organs to be harvested. >>>>>>>>"scientists agree its a human life, not a baby" True, my mistake but it’s ultimately just semantics. And as to forced expulsion vs killing…the fuck? Just think about that one for a second and get back to me.......................

You meant to say killed a baby and didn’t even have the decency to tell the father before he went off to war then proceeds to cheat on him twice later >Oh will she cheat on him? And if she will then why the fuck are you getting downvoted lmao are we supposed to have some empathy for someone who cheated on their partner 😭😭 >>Hi. Eve hasn’t cheated on mark in the show. He’s being downvoted for supporting forced birthing an unwanted child. He seems to think woman’s bodies are something he can control and people disagree. >>>Also I’m sure people like you don’t even have to worry about pregnancy because if your using the term forced birther I doubt you actually have sex you probably just have a lot of female friends you wish you could have sex with >>>>I’m gay, dumb ass. I just happen to have a history of woman in my family. >>>>>Doesnt mean youre having sex lmao >>>>>>It does mean I’m not having sex with woman? Are we just saying things now?

"Clump of cells" as if that doesn't describe any and all living beings... I know what you did Atom Eve, I shall avenge Photon Steve >This clump of cells is not a living human being... >>They will be if allowed to naturally develop, that to me is enough. And if it's not a r*pe case, they're also the direct responsibility of both the mother and the father's actions, they should be expected to raise their fucking child regardless of if they want it or not, a parent's first duty is to their child until they're independent. >>>Ive got a towel with millions of dead human beings I murdered while simultaneously orgasming in my laundry hamper. >>>>Sperm already "cycles", as in, the cells continuously are produced and die, even inside your balls mate, they're cheap to make and that's why men can just... well spread their seed whenever, eggs are the ones with limited and permanent supply, that's why menopause doesn't happen to guys >>>>>Its a joke mate, i realized this isnt the proper place for a serious debate.

She's disgusting for doing that without telling Mark, she had the chance to tell him before he went away and she didn't do it, she's a lier and a murderer >If she told him he wouldn't have left for the war, she's not a murderer for that, wtf. >>So she killed their kid behind his back instead lmao >>>What kid? A fetus is not a child. >>>>It's life on the making >>>>>So is cancer. A fetus is not a child.

Removed a clump of cells. Everyone is clump of cells me you her everyone, the show is justifying her wrong doing by validating it using her emotional state. Omni man is not being treated as (oh it's okay everything is fine) his wrong doing is not excused due to his background. And the show showed us he is trying to correct himself and despite that no matter what he did his modern and past mistakes will always linger forever. That's why we don't hate him. While eve killed a child by unreasonable logic. Alone? You feared mark died? nonsense >It’s not a child. It’s a fetus. That’s prelife not life. A woman should have bodily autonomy and no one should be forced to go through birth if they don’t want to. She wasn’t ready and that’s valid. >>If you don't want to have birth, then don't have sex (or introduce a solution earlier from the start) and mabye learn that there is consequences when you fuck everyday like hamsters. There is only 2 case I believe a women should have a choice which is she got rped(or somehow force pregnancy in impossible means) or the pregancy is dangerous for her, otherwise you are killing an innocent life without reasonable logic. Wasn't ready is not valid of an excuse, she is fully capable women with a lot of support while her decision is purely emotional selfishness. Being teenager is not an excuse for wrong doing. Prelife would be the semen and the eggs. >>>"There is only 2 case I believe a women should have a choice which is she got rped(or somehow force pregnancy in impossible means)" So the fetus isnt alive if the father is a rapist? Lmao you do not care about babies >>>>Don't mix things up there is domain where women choice over her life matters a bit more than a life that holds weight and the potential to be person. Otherwise she must accept the consequences of her choices and so is the father. Same principle as in some laws where aborting the child is a choice by law and killing the women that is pregnant is killing two lives.

Clump of cells argument is getting stale it's literally dehumanising >It is not a human yet so idk how it's dehumanizing >>It's literally human by any scientific standards. >>>No it quite literally isn't lmfao you can't just say the word science when you have no argument words have meaning >>>>It's a biologically human in an early state of development. That's literally was a fetus is. No one disputes this, what's disputed is the personhood status, not if it's human or not. >>>>>Why do Christians all talk like trump when they're making up scientific consensus..? Nobody calls a fetus a human being. It is a clump of biomatter that can develop into a human.

Pro lifers are so fuckin weird >People who fucking kill kids aren’t weird to you?? >>You people care more about an unborn child than the ones living. Fuck you >>>I don’t? >>>>What's your take on ICE detaining children aged 5 to 18?

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/GetNoted/comments/1suf2n4/stop_telling_women_how_to_dress/

HIGHLIGHTS

This meme was made by a white liberal woman who can dress like she wants because she lives in a modern secular democracy >The white conservative man telling how women should dress. Amazing >>I’m Danish and im not conservative. Fuck you and your gender apartheid >>>I know you’re danish, and I don’t have gender apartheid in my country or any other apartheid unlike yall with ur ethnic apartheid. Everyone knows about denmarks racial laws >>>>What racial laws, please tell more >>>>>“Ghetto laws” ring a bell? >>>>>>Please tell me about the ghetto laws >>>>>>>Discriminating based on ethnicity. >>>>>>>>r/mansfictionalscenario

God I hate these notes. The point is that YOU random person in the world DO NOT GET TO DICTATE HOW SOMEONE ELSE DRESSES. If a devout Muslim chooses to wear the Hijab that is not YOUR BUSINESS. It is equally harmful and misogynistic to tell a woman how she cannot dress as is to tell them how to dress. >Social pressures come in all forms including false religious expertise from theologians. But I do agree in that life is too short to be impressing fuckwits. >>Ok, do we also get to talk about how western culture pressures woman to sexualize themselves? >>>is a family member gonna beat you to death if you dont sexualize your body in western culture? >>>>Your boyfriend might, so I guess it depends on your definition of family. Are you really gonna pretend women don't get killed in the west for not putting out? >>>>>coughing baby vs hydrogen bomb comparison >>>>>>The number one cause of death for pregnant women in the US is homicide. >>>>>>>islam fixed this small issue by forcing the pregnant women to marry the father, even in cases of rape (of children sometimes)! US is so far behind on the matter

This will always be confusing to the internet because the problem is mildly complex. It's both, people. 2 things happening at once. I knew you wouldn't get it. Many women are forced to wear hajibs because of religious mandates where they live. And many women choose to wear them, despite there being no mandate where they live. Now this is the part where you pick a side and pretend like the other side doesn't exist/is crazy. >Many women who choose to wear Hijab is because they have been told to wear one since they were kid. >>All humans were subject to culture as children, yes. You do all sorts of things because you were taught to do it as a child. >>>We're also told to dress in clothes and not be naked in public, yes... But that's simplifying the problem. The problem is that girls are told to dress a certain way to not invite interest from men. That is a problematic narrative worth criticizing. >>>>Nobody is stopping anyone from “criticizing.” That is different than state action. >>>>>"Nobody is stopping anyone from “criticizing.” Not true, unfortunately. There's plenty of people who falsely cry 'islamophobia' upon seeing any criticism of Islam, no matter how valid. Or do worse >>>>>>That doesn’t stop you from doing anything. That’s just other criticism. And murder is already illegal. We’ve got that covered.

What’s the point of the note? The post isn’t saying there’s no religious source for clothing laws. It’s saying those laws shouldn’t exist anyway. >The point is Islamaphobia. >>The term "islamophobia" is ridiculous and anyone using it unironically makes themselves into a laughingstock. >>>Funny how you can’t say this about antisemitism >>>>One is hating a group of people based on their ethnicity and the other is hating a violent and oppressice religious ideology, believing and practising which is a personal choice. >>>>>So hating Judaism and Israel isn’t called antisemitism? >>>>>>Correct. It's just that a lot of people who hate Judaism and/or Israel are also antisemitic on top of that. But those things themselves are not antisemitic.

It’s not Islamophobia to prevent religious fanatics to force a gender apartheid on everyone Fuck Islam >But why do you people support racial or ethnic apartheid? >>Opposing gender apartheid is being racist? You Islamic clowns really inbreed IQ30 >>>No you r*tard, being against gender apartheid but supporting racial apartheid is stupid. I’m not even Islamic lol, Danes r never beating the allegations >>>>What racial apartheid? >>>>>Denmarks racial apartheid >>>>>>Arabs can live wherever they want In Denmark

To remind you which groups you're supposed to hate. >this here, because they don't mention the Amish, those weird Mormons like the Duggars. Nope. Just that religion that doesn't focus on a white Jesus. Edit: Thank you all for tripping over yourselves to prove the point. Keep it going guys, I think if 10 more "UMMM ACTUALLY" about Islam will really sell the point here. Still proving the point. >>25% of the globe practices islam… >>>And the 75% that do still tell women how to look. Directly or indirectly. >>>>when's the last time a woman in a non-muslim and non-weird christian religion got stoned or otherwise executed for not covering their face? >>>>>It basically doesn't happen in any kind of advanced society, no matter their religion. The only countries with a potential death penalty for women not covering is Iran and the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, which are practicing the most extreme versions of Islam. >>>>>>so... it happens with islamic countries? granted there might be some level of bias given that extremist christians don't really have any countries for themselves. >>>>>>>It happens in two out of who-know-how-many Muslim countries, does that mean it is inherent to Islam?

If a woman wants to go naked, she should be able to. If a woman wants to cover her body head to toe, she should be able to. There should be nothing controversial about either of these statements. >If a woman wants to go naked, she should be able to....but also understand the consequences of your actions and what comes with a charge of indecent exposure. >>There should be no such thing as a charge of indecent exposure ideally. >>>Yea, if we all lived in fluffy, silly, happy land where bad things only happen in our dreams. We live in reality and that reality has weirdos, perverts, and children around. Incident exposure isn't meant to be oppressive. It's to keep decorum. Because we live in a shared, real society. >>>>Is seeing a naked body a bad thing? Why? >>>>>I can't tell if you are trolling.... Seeing a naked body at in subway station = bad Seeing a naked body in the privacy of your own home with consent involved = good >>>>>>What I'm asking for is a justification. For example: X is "bad" because it increases the amount of suffering in the universe. That kind of thing >>>>>>>Since you want to do some algebra.... X is bad because (Y + Z) = obvious answer naked people in public = X It is enabling for = Y creeps/weirdos/people with no impulse control = Z >>>>>>>>That intuition is common, but it isn't supported by anthropological or criminological data.

So does every Abrahamic scripture. >Shhh reddit going though a Islamophobic phase s/ >>More like we're all realising religion is bullshit and got tired of only hating on Christianity >>>Fun fact, you can feel like that without doing and saying Islamophobic shit >>>>Why is Islamophobia bad? Is it bad to hate such a largely regressive religion? >>>>>You know you can dislike and hate and talk about the religious teachings and beliefs without doing all the other shit, right? Like it's not even that hard either. >>>>>>Yeah that’s kinda the point, no? Islamophobia is hating Islam while not hating Muslims. >>>>>>>Oh my lord im not gonna argue with a 12 year old

Technically speaking, if a woman voluntarily becomes Muslim, it is indeed her choice to dress like this. >Counter point, if a woman does not voluntarily become Muslim it is indeed not her choice. >>So what you're saying is "Stop telling women how to dress"? >>>I think women should be able to wear a hijab if they choose and I think they should be able to not wear a hijab if they choose not to. Most Middle Eastern governments would disagree with the second part. >>>>Not just the goverments. I'd say a clear majority of muslim parents (mainly fathers) do not allow their daughters the dignity of a choice in the matter. Not if they want a roof over their head, or not having to be scared their cousins come to "restore honor". >>>>>Um, I live in a Muslim majority village in a third world country (not in the Middle east), and I can assure you, you can't find any where near a billion muslims (or 500+ million muslim men, if you want to go that way) who would disown their daughters for not wearing hijab. So, no. It's not a clear majority. >>>>>>Not familiar with muslims outside of the middle-east. All the ones I have ever met have come from the middle-east/east africa. But I apologize for the generalization. The muslims I have met have all been very similar in their interpretation and application of their faith. Unfortunately that includes being hardline on what their daughters wear, who they can bring home, doing activities that involve sleeping away from the home (gotta bring one male family member along) and other things like that.

Thats disingenuous, Islam isnt the only religion which has a gendered dress code in their Texts. >In the texts they all say something about it. But in practice in 2026, I don't see many Christian women being forced by state law to wear veils, do you? Or being beat to death by morality police if they don't. Kind of disingenuous and missing the point here. >>look at theocratic country like saudi arabia and you see there are unveiled women >>>Great, what about all the others? >>>>You mean the 2 countries that actually require it? >>>>>Upvoting because a Hijabis perspective is important to the discussion. >>>>>>Thank you. At the very same time the protests in Iran were happening for women to be allowed to take off their hijabs, there were protests happening in India of women demanding to be allowed to keep them on. At the core both protests were the same because it isn't about wearing or not wearing the hijab; it is about women having the right to choose. That is the point. I will march all day for my sister's rights to remove their hijab, and I hope they would march for my right to keep mine on.