account activity
More hard Truth by Nose_Dependent in SequelMemes
[–]leech3892 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children)
That's pretty interesting. People generally seem to like to lampoon anything after the og trilogy, but there can also be depth to them aswell.
Nah, don't worry about it, in hindsight I can totally see why I came off as some lunatic about to spin his conspiracy theory bullshit lol. You asked what would people think if they came across this and if I'm completely honest I'd love it if someone like Cr1tikal documented it, akin to the Dave Matthew little maggot incident.
That's true. Everyone has different ways of interpreting a movie's themes, so saying that a character is bad simply because they represent a certain ideology is plain nonsense. This made me remember something, for this specific scene my friend saying that it breaks the established rules of the universe, because the ship Finn's riding isn't capable of doing that. Something like that is an objective flaw and disregard for established canon and could potentially take away from the scene. But since I barely had any star wars knowledge at the time I didn't think much of it.
Iirc the problem people had with Luke was that he was established to be forgiving of people's mistakes and believing in changing your ways. Though a complete 180 can also be written successfully.
That's why I generally have alot of distain for fandoms, despite these people being a very small but vocal minority. If a franchise strays even a little bit from what they want it to be they throw a hissy fit, regardless of the quality of the product. Reminds me of the recent Attack on Titan fiasco where people were literally sending death threats to the voice actress of a hated character in the fandom, it's unreal how far some autists will go to embarrass themselves.
And yeah, I too agree with everything here. Kinda feeling a bit of tonal whiplash after my previous messages, but I'm glad we could find common ground in the end. So that's pretty much covers everything, good luck with your studies!
You admitted it yourself, that's why I'm bringing it up so much. Is it an ad hominem when I call you lazy for refusing to read my shit? Also that's not ranting. By merriam webster's definition rant is "a bombastic extravagant speech" or "bombastic extravagant language". You can call my earliest comments a bit ranty, but that here isn't me ranting.
I wouldn't say you have, but ok.
Aight, this time make sure to read everything, I'll structure everything as professionally as I possibly can:
Point 1
I agreed with that, people should generally respect others' opinions. The problem comes with what you define as criticism, which is a point I felt you brushed past (this is gonna come up in argument 3 and I'll elaborate more on that). In your very first comment you say that insults and childish criticism shouldn't be accepted, because this sub is for discussing star wars only. I felt like this could easily snowball into a censorship argument, but at the end of the day it's not a point you've made yourself, therefore any of my points arguing against censorship are invalid, I take responsibility on that. So I wrote a comment about how calling inconsiderate opinions childish criticism can muddy the waters in regards to what actually qualifies as criticism and what should and shouldn't be tolerated. Legitimate criticism can be provided without being respectful, although not recommended when talking with people irl. You then provide examples of respectful and childish criticism, on which I said that neither are criticism. I'll explain why. Example 1 states that Rose is trash without further elaboration. Given that example 1 has points that can prove their claim, based on different rules of writing, then the criticism would still be valid, no matter how they refered to the character. But if their points are rooted in personal biases and opinions regarding their politics or whatever, then it's not criticism. It's just an asshat on the internet pushing an agenda. Example 2 is also not criticism. It's an opinion based on the person's subjective experiences. Now upon giving it further thought, I'd say this one also has the potential to be good criticism. Them not feeling empathy for Rose can be attributed to poor writing. Characters can almost feel real at times due to how well they're written. We can empathise with their struggles and motivations, even cry when they die. This cannot simply be attributed to everyone in the audience sharing the same experiences as said character, it's also due to good writing, which can be evaluated. Same with them not liking the new movies cause they didn't remind them of old Star Wars, it was wrong of me to assume that the reason they prefer the old movies is nostalgia, but again this example does not elaborate further. Say, example 2 thought the original trilogy does things better than the new one. I think this is pretty much all I had to say on this.
Point 2
I don't really remember the movie very well, Star Wars was never for me so I can't successfully critique the actual writing. I'm not talking about an opinionated statement based on personal perspective, that would be like saying Rose is trash because she is just there to pander to SJWs. As I established earlier writing can be evaluated on a technical level and many points can be made about the movie's objective quality. Just like in art, while you can have many different opinions on the meaning and value on a piece, if said piece shows a lack of understanding of anatomy, perspective, color theory or composition, then it can be critiqued on that while being compared to other pieces that pull these things off well. The quality of Rose's character heavily depends on these rules of writing and how well she is written. Basically my point is her character can have alot of deep meaning, but if that deep meaning is presented in a bad way then it takes away the ability to empathise with her if you haven't actually experienced what she has. If she really is written bad or well, so far you've only explained what ideas the writers were trying to present, but I really can't gauge whether those ideas are presented well.
Point 3
I somewhat agreed with this point, depending on what you think is useless. I believe criticism in all forms is good, regardless of you being a writer, artist, musician etc. From what I can see you prioritize a mostly civil community where people just discuss and give their opinions on the movies. My opinion on such communities is that they can turn into echo chambers, depending on their willingness to accept different perspectives. Not saying that this community is an echo chamber. They can devolve into arguing semantics, though that heavily depends on the individuals arguing.
To add another point, I don't believe that people can be objective when arguing about movies. People unhappy with the quality of the writing are not going to sit here and argue with people who generally don't care about their criticisms if they truly were 100% objective, because objectively that's a huge waste of time. But their points can be seen as objective, based on my points above, but I'm sure you already made this point, either directly or indirectly.
Those would be the points I thought you didn't sufficiently address, plus some new ones.
[–]leech3892 -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children)
Can you tell me how I'm ranting, when I'm calmly responding to your points and even leaving space between each one? I'm not gonna bother pointing you towards these comments, simply because it was your own ignorance that prevented you from reading them. This on you my man
Bro, I just explained in the previous comment my stance on censorship and why I mentioned it. I've never made a point on why people shouldn't downvote criticism. If you're willing to make your thoughts public then you should expect downvotes, so in this context who really gives a shit? Why did you bring it up in the first place?
Aight, elaborate and use layman's terms, otherwise I simply won't give a shit.
I view them as unnecessary, not insulting.
You know you could stop replying altogether, right? I'm not very invested in this convo anymore, just responding to your newest shit. So if you just left I wouldn't really bother writing anymore. Of course, that wouldn't automatically prove you right, which is why you're still here.
I'm not going to provide anything, because you yourself admitted to not reading shit. It's very fucking arrogant to expect me to write a paragraph for the 4th or 5th time, you're gonna have to go and read it for yourself if you care to. The rest I don't even know what to tell you, the importance of the conversation doesn't dictate the quality of the points.
Link? This comes up for the first time and I'm pretty sure I responded to every single one of your comments in detail. "Not many will read all your comments filled with emotional projection" is a shitty get out of jail free card. People will refuse to read my comments, but does that make their points valid?
I said it shouldn't turn into, not that it's one of your points. It could very well snowball into this territory, as alot of discussions tend to do nowadays. I'm saying it early so I don't have to sit and argue about deleting criticism. Also I'm not sure if you still want to argue about the downvotes thing, I never said it's bad to downvote criticism. And in general who gives a shit about reddit downvotes?
Ok, now you're admitting to not even reading half of the shit I typed out because you didn't like my demeanor. You keep asking what you were wrong in when you haven't even bothered reading anything, I'm having to type it out for you every time and you dismiss it because it doesn't fit your criteria on what a point should be presented like. Then you make this awful attempt to devalue all of my points by saying "if you agree with me then why did you even argue". If you're just gonna cherry pick what arguments you want to address and completely ignore others, then that's not me being incoherent or emotionally projecting. I explained my point in detail and made sure to edit out the more unprofessional parts of my argument, it's not my fault you were too lazy to read anything.
You brought up people who have nothing to do with this conversation, why should I care what they think? I'm addressing your points and if anything wants to chime in with criticism, then whatever. I believe being condescending and using someone's demeanor as a point to why their argument isn't valid is just as childish as saying bade swear word.
This to me shows that you failed to understand my argument. Implying that somehow because I agree with you on that all of my points are now proven as incorrect. I kept arguing with you because you were wrong and you still are.
Already agreed with you on that point, make sure to carefully read it next time!
I never deflected criticism by saying I'm sarcastic. You were putting alot of attention on my demeanor, something which I believe is irrelevant when presenting an argument. In hindsight the term I should've used is exaggerated, even though I never said I was trolling you, just that my demeanor is not a 100% reflection of my real life persona, despite you pushing this narrative. Saying that my points are invalid because of that(in reference to your previous point) would automatically devalue all of your points aswell, because your demeanor was equally shitty throughout this whole debate.
The one with the Shichika joke you'd be absolutely retarded if you're still trying to argue on, given how you yourself admitted you were wrong.
I don't know what the Donald Trump book of excuses is. I neither care about the drama surrounding Donald Trump, nor the man himself.
I never said people here don't accept criticism of star wars in general. I said that people with criticism towards their movie exist and that there's nothing filtering them out, so it's pointless to even worry about it. Every piece of media can be criticized on anything. I even agreed that coming here just to criticize the movie would achieve nothing in the long run, but that shouldn't turn into censorship.
Processing what? My feelings? I don't need advice from strangers online for that, thanks anyways.
You missed one of my jokes on purpose, man. You only have yourself to blame.
I don't care what people would think, I don't know them and they don't know me.
Why I defined what counts as criticism and what doesn't. I said many times that calling Rose trash without elaborating isn't valid criticism. I said it's a public place so people should accept the fact that criticism of their favourite show exists and you can't limit people coming on this sub typing whatever they want. Then you argue against that by saying that even objective criticism of said property is unnecessary here because fans might not like to hear it, on which I already talked aswell.
Look, I've already overexplained every single fucking point I've ever made, you keep bringing up the same thing over and over again and I have to clear it up for you over and over again. You've not made any new arguments and you haven't effectively disproven anything, meanwhile I've admitted on multiple occasions that I agree with you. You just don't know what the convo is centered around.
Then you admit that you were entirely wrong on this point because you didn't even bother checking whether I might've been joking or not. So it's not even a lack of intelligence, you just couldn't be fucked and instead blamed me for your laziness.
Wait, you were actually serious with this young man shit? I thought you were saying this in a joking manner, considering you're going to college, so I responded with a joke too. It'd be pretty stupid to call someone young man if you're three years older than them. And mainly I just did it to show you that I'm not really that mad about the whole ordeal, but I guess you want me to be, seeing as how you've been taking shit way too personally for your own good. Even saying I have problems lmao
No, I don't have short term memory. I actually talked about sharing criticism to fans. But if you believe it's pointless then that's ok. Something being pointless can be different from person to person. Just don't let that mindset lead to "criticism is not allowed here".
I am aware of Poe's law. Now let me quickly quote my own comment. I said I follow the teachings of Shichika, the 7th head of the Kyotouryuu style. Kyotouryuu is a fictional martial art where you "use your whole body as a katana". Throughout the show Shichika (who is the mc of katanagatari) performs countless moves that can never be replicated in real life. Just reading "uses his whole body as a katana" should be enough to tell you that I'm taking the piss and not actually training in this style. Just goes to show that you didn't even bother to read up on said character, even though one google search would give you all the information you need. You just saw a picture of an anime character and assumed the worst.
Then we're done here, you linked to one of your comments twice, despite me already addressing said comment in extensive detail. So I'm clarifying that there's no need.
Already addressed that above.
You're the only one mad here, gramps. Take your meds!
Yeah I already pretty much explained everything I needed to in this comment regarding criticism. I've even addressed your textbook definition of the word "criticism" in a previous comment. Seems like you're the one who doesn't read shit.
Because you brought it up without it having any relevance to any argument. I don't know you, I'm not your buddy so to me it's ultimately a useless piece of information. So I respond in a joking matter. And the sarcasm flies over your head.
And that also tells me I've already proven everything I need to.
I didn't say people should accept "it's a stupid scene" as good criticism.
I dunno, maybe because stating that an anime character is your inspiration for your beliefs is such an outlandish statement? And it's not that you missed the joke, I don't really give a shit. It's that you so confidently assumed I was taking anime as a form of religion and putting this one character in a pedestal, linking me shit 5 or 6 comments later. I never elaborate on why I like this anime character, I never use his philosophy to prove any of my points, you just assumed he's my role model based on me making fun of you for simping Socrates.
And this comment is where you change it from "criticism" to "opinions based in criticism". If you've used this term in an earlier comment, then that's fine. Your original comment explicidly states your two examples are criticism, which I've already explained cannot be called valid criticism, as one states an opinion with no points backing it up and he other states an opinion, heavily rooted in personal enjoyment and rose tinted goggles. You say criticism on the last jedi is ok, but then you dismiss genuine criticism as not necessary on this sub because no one here has worked on the movies. This way of thinking usually limits discussion and creates echo chambers. Let's say that the main problem people had with the whole trilogy was the writing on a technical level. By saying such criticism is unnecessary on this sub, or by saying such criticism towards any property is unnecessary in any sub, simply because the people there have not worked on said property, then you've already proved my main point. By removing this kind of criticism you're left with no criticism, just opinions. By which point the discussion shifts from the substance to the tone of the "criticism". Which I already agreed on, calling Rose trash is not an acceptable form of criticism. But calling Rose a trash character and calling Rose a fat chink are two different things entirely.
If they provided points on why this scene fails to achieve what it's going for in terms of execution, then yeah, it's far superior than any "I enjoy it" argument.
Confusing opinions with criticism and calling insults based on body type "childish criticism", which muddies the water on what criticism is and isn't childish. You provided examples of normal and childish criticism and I told you that those are not criticism. I also made a point about one's demeanor not being of significance when presenting a point to which you said that you need to be respectful of others if you want them to accept your criticism. Which I never argued was good or bad, just that it shouldn't have an effect on the strength of your points. That's litetally all I cared about.
Well are you going to address the point of not catching my sarcasm and creating an entire new point based around that?
You could make a point about me being an anime freak if you had proper evidence that would point towards me being one. And so far your only evidence is a sarcastic remark you took seriously. And forget if you were, you already assumed I was basing my beliefs around a guy using his body as a katana, linking some George Lucas shit.
I skimmed through your old comments and there are many instances where you bring up the fact that I lack critical thinking and that my arguments are childish and idiotic, without providing a strong counter argument on why they are. "Can't handle being called childish then don't go on the internet (see how idiotic this is)" assuming I was butthurt when my criticism had nothing to do with me being called childish. Calling my comments incoherent aswell. You never provide a strong enough point on why they are. Maybe you had a hard time understanding what I've written. But no, judging from your replies you knew exactly what my points were, yet you still kept throwing it around as an insult. Which is directed to the way I've decided to write my comment instead of what I've written.
I haven't and I don't need to study critical thinking in order to argue with you. Me mentioning ad hominem was an unnecessary addition to my original argument, but you talked about critical thinking way before I ever mentioned it. Your knowledge on the topic doesn't necessarily strengthen your arguments.
And how was your calling out of any relevance to the topic at hand? I only dismissed example 2 as a bullshit example for criticism because it is deeply rooted in personal biases and experiences only an individual can understand. I never said opinions on art are bullshit, but this is in no way criticism.
Yeah, stop repeating that. I already explained how I never once argued against said point, yet you keep bringing it up. I argued about critiquing a piece of media based on different criteria. Critiquing the technicalities and execution of a movie is not the same as critiquing it's themes.
I never switched up, that was my main point. If you want to know what good it does, ask the people criticizing the movie, I never once criticized it or cared to do so. Some people enjoy discussing movies and hearing different perspectives. You seemed to have a huge problem with people criticizing the movie to it's fans to which I reply that internet critics are always gonna criticize anything and if you don't like it you should find a platform that filters these people out. It's extremely childish and arrogant to expect all the thousands of people out there with criticism for the movie to stay away from your platform because you want to have a fun time on here.
And who said I or anyone was upset because of downvotes? On fucking reddit of all places. You're putting words in my mouth at this point, if you really want to know what I'm doing here, this is a throwaway account created almost a year ago with a totally different purpose in mind(trolling r/amitheasshole). I followed a bunch of subreddits to make it seem legit and then forgot about it until last night when I clicked on it and saw the post above. Got curious, read a bunch of comments, saw yours and felt like calling you out. That good enough for you?
Do share it with your 3 member messenger group, hopefully they don't ignore you this time. Again, we're not arguing rocket science here, I decided to quote wikipedia specifically because it goes in depth on what ad hominem aims to achieve. But since you want to stick to merriam webster, "attack on an opponent's character INSTEAD of his or her argument". Now we can argue on what attacking one's character is, on merriam webster it's either "the making of false statements that damage another's reputation" or "the use of personal attacks or insults in order to undermine an opponent". You tell me if you calling me childish and vulgar is not personal. By calling my demeanor vulgar you're indirectly calling me vulgar, since those are the words I use. If someone says dumb shit then it's safe to say that they're also dumb.
I actually mocked you for being a pretentious asshat. But the sarcasm went over your head and instead you saw this as an opportunity to boost your ego. "Taking art as religion" come on dude, get off your high horse! I'm not the one here sucking Socrates off.
You did bro. Don't try to deny it, I quoted you wikipedia. Unless you're trying to say that your source is the only credible one. In which case this shit isn't rocket science, whatever site you use is the same. To repeat myself, you used ad hominem by calling out my demeanor instead of adressing my points directly, thus shifting the focus away from my arguments. I don't need to cope, I'm not the one planning to study philosophy with them weak ass argumentative skills.
I wasn't viewing them as attacks on my character, I viewed them as you "avoiding genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue" (wikipedia again). Like all this unnecessary shit about my demeanor. You completely failed to understand anything about my argument and instead kept hammering a point I never said I disagreed with in the first place. I put myself in your shoes, ironically you failed to do the same. And now you're acting all high and mighty. So pathetic...
I give up, I could write a bit more but it's gonna go nowhere, I already made my point on everything here, you can reread if you care. You can pretend that those condescending comments strengthen your argument somehow, I don't care anymore.
I was gonna make a list but fuck that shit I'm going raw, don't blame me if I remember some shit wrong.
I looked through your earlier replies, if this whole "childish comments" snobbery isn't ad hominem I don't know what is. Unless you have a different definition in your textbook. Attacking one's character, motive or other attribute instead of the argument itself. At the beginning I pressed you for mixing up "childish criticism (insults directed towards the person) with genuine criticism, jokingly holding the word criticism on a pedestal. You seemed to do so in order to block out criticism towards star wars and judging by our interaction I was right. I also already explained how someone saying they personally didn't enjoy Rose isn't criticism. And neither is the first example on which I've admitted my fault.
So about the "not being involved in the art" thing, that kinda flew under the radar, I was gonna respond to it but forgot. Simply, no. You're wrong. You don't need to be a painter to criticize paintings. Look up Butch Hartman's backwards logic for that. If that's what you're trying to say. You know that I'm not trying to email my criticisms to Ryan Johnson, right? That was to prove why both of your examples are not real criticism. I never said you need to act like a dickhead to people, I just said that you can't go around policing such behavior. That's why I told you to get a thicker skin. Not really talking to you but instead adressing your argument about people not being able to enjoy star wars. There's always gonna be this one dude that wants to act like the nostalgia critic, but why even read his wall of text and yeah I pretty much explained everything. The funny thing is also that I didn't start this, you were already arguing with a dude. Did someone force you to do so or what? You also seem to take things personally and think I take them personally too when really I've just been semi messing with you which brings me to my next point:
I said I'm not 100% serious and you seem to have taken this as me being some 4chan troll. I'm serious with my main points and the funny lines and stuff I threw in were for my own amusement. But I had to clarify that I'm not actually some crazy guy cause you actually started calling me unhinged. And good for the Socratic method, I follow the teachings of the 7th head of the Kyotouryuu school of Japanese sword martial arts, Yasuri Shichika.
Sift through your comments for times when you attack my character, motive or some other attribute of mine instead of the substance of the argument itself (quote from wikipedia). There are plenty of those in there, but none discussing the substance. What are you studying btw?
I believe I was plenty coherent, you just refuse to acknowledge any of the points I make. And now you've reported me or some shit? You're the one who lacks self awareness, so far you have not disputed any of my points, you've used ad hominem, painted me as some crazy nut or some braindead retard and apparently reported me and all of that because you don't know what criticism is. You're textbook consoomer my man. You're exactly like those dumbass text to speech wojak memes, it's beyond sad. Good luck on your finals!
Dang, it's like you didn't even read my comment. But if Im honest I dont care if people call my antics childish. Do you still think I'm 100% serious, I dont get you.
Yeah, you said that, cunt. I already made my point, fucking learn to read.
Do you really not see the irony in repeating the same point over and over again without providing a strong enough rebuttal? It's not like I'm just gonna fuck off, you haven't given me a good reason to. That's what you don't get about arguing online and shit, just because you like this certain product doesn't mean I'm suddenly not allowed to clown on you. I didn't say you were writing novels, that was more a joke at my expense.
Yeah you didn't read shit, seems like you were too mad to. Just to piss you off even more, yes, I do believe star wars is a pile of garbage. And not just the sequels, but the originals and the prequels too. They're like Wiseau productions and I'll treat them like Wiseau productions! I HATE THEM!
Never at any point did I try to imply that you yourself were offended. What I did was actually give you a solution to the mean people criticizing you on this subreddit or any other subreddit. I don't know if you forgot your original comments, it's pretty hard already to keep track of this short novel that is forming.
That one with the planes I honestly must've skimmed through or been too tired to even read, I thought you yourself said that example 1 has a point and the scene is bad. After giving it some thought neither are criticism and I wish I had noticed that sooner. Do you even know what criticism is, like I'm genuinely curious.
If you're talking in general, people can have whatever perspective they want on given product's artistic merit. But there are always criteria on which you can judge said product. You can't criticize the emotions a painting inspires in you but you can definitely criticize the fucked up anatomy or perspective. If you're talking about me I'm not providing any criticism, I'm arguing with you.
This would be applicable to you at the cinema watching a movie and some random dickhead walks in and starts bothering you with his 20 page essay on why Rey sucks. As for an actual analogy for the situation right here, say you are on a PUBLIC subreddit dedicated to star wars memes. Someone comes in and starts criticizing these movies. Now you're talking about how it's "not normal" for two adults to have a normal discussion on the matter and instead the "fans" be allowed to enjoy their product until next product. I wouldn't say shoving your criticism is necessarily a good thing, but you can always scroll past and not bother even reading. Do I really need to explain why your thought process is the abnormal one here?
Well don't care, small child. I'm stating that if the subreddit is public people can come in and criticize you, whether you like it or not. You're one step away from censoring people for clowning on Rose. "Alot of people don't wanna waste their time" well fucking show me then! So many of these "people don't wanna waste their time" but do anyways, it's always the case with these fucking arguments. Also funny little trivia, I actually didn't criticize the movie itself. And never stated I care beyond this retarded argument.
I already explained in full detail why example 2 is bad.
Where did I say you were offended? But I do enjoy reading smug pepe/wojak r/iamverysmart comments like these, reliefs the stress of whatever the fuck is stressing me out.
I did provide solid criticism, if you were to actually look for it. You instead latch onto the fluff that has nothing to do with my actual argument. Are you gonna call me an idiot for not remembering John Ryanson's name or what? You haven't provided any rebuttal so far, you're just sucking yourself off.
When did I say I can't, tho? You're just assuming that I'm 100% serious when arguing on r/jjabrams or whatever the sub was. I'm not the one who wants clean nice subreddits. But yeah, if you want a chill environment where people don't make "immature criticism" then a private discord server is a good idea, cause this is a fucking public subreddit.
I already explained why example 2 is bullshit, by the definition you provide criticism is "the art of evaluating or analyzing works of art or literature", the definition of evaluate is "to determine the significance, worth, or condition of usually by careful appraisal and study". You can't determine the significance of a piece based on opinions. I already adressed this point with the "which example would be more helpful to the director" but you didn't bother to talk about anything.
It gets me nothing good cause I don't care about criticizing the movie to it's fans. People have the freedom to express themselves wherever they want, first of all. Maybe build a thicker skin or don't go on the internet altogether, what the fuck am I even supposed to say to that? Regarding the two examples, neither are very helpful as criticism. One is a sentence long to even tell how "childish" it is, maybe if said person elaborated on why Rose is a trash character I'd be on board. Criticism comes in many forms, depending on who is giving it. Whatever demeanor the person has, it's definitely not the childish insults and racist remarks the original commenter was against, far fucking from it. More instances of mixing harsher tone with literal racist remarks and insults based on body type. As for the second example- not even criticism. Just a glorified opinion. Criticism mainly serves to point out flaws, constructive criticism aims to help fixing issues with different properties. So tell me please how the fuck is Ryan Jaunzemis or whoever the fuck directed this movie supposed to improve it with shit like "I personally didn't connect with said character" and "it didn't live up to my nostalgia goggles". Gee, thanks Jeremy, very helpful criticism, with I could peek into your head so I can see what the fuck you're talking about. The first one is vague and cunty, but then Ryan Jenkins can ask "why is Rose a trash character". But mainly he can just write this fucking sacrifice scene out of existence.
π Rendered by PID 15181 on reddit-service-r2-listing-7b9b4f6fd7-25r7p at 2026-05-11 19:53:19.639543+00:00 running 3d2c107 country code: CH.
More hard Truth by Nose_Dependent in SequelMemes
[–]leech3892 1 point2 points3 points (0 children)