Unpopular Opinions V6 You know maybe fascism wasn't all that it was cracked up to be - General

Coins are great don't abandon them

[QUOTE=Gimme20dollaz;51088303]Eric Andre isn't even that funny...[/QUOTE] He seems to me like a modern accepted version of 'lol random XD'

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;51072341]a lot of there stuff seems like "wow we're ~adult~"[/QUOTE] how come everytime you post your opinion it seems like you've literally never even seen the thing you're criticizing edit: [QUOTE=SIRIUS;51089583]He seems to me like a modern accepted version of 'lol random XD'[/QUOTE] caseinpoint edit: unpopular and baseless is pretty different, its not like you typically say you don't care for such and such but you usually attach odd criticisms for the things I've seen you post about too, ones that read like you formed them without even partaking [QUOTE=Anonymuzz;51089909]eric andre is random humor and that's fine because he actually knows comedic timing[/QUOTE] perhaps but its a bit more thought out then LOL RANDOM XD like he said a pizza getting beat up by vegetables makes sense, and I don't think the destruction ones count. I'm honestly having trouble thinking of some of the more popular skits that seemed completely random. Only one that comes to mind is when he interrupted an interview at the DNC with a guy in a horse costume. The parts that you can classify as lol random are probably the transitions with the cutouts/edits. It's probably more shock humor? But not for the viewer, usually the funny seems to come from the way people react to his shenanigans, like the guy at the car dealership getting mad about his trench coat and stilts, or people looking on in shock as he destroys the art gallery or makes out with a cop [editline]22nd September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Skyward;51089955]I kinda wish Eric Andre focused more on the interviews and not the skits.[/QUOTE] The interviews are probably hard to pull off, he's gotta get a star willing to come on, and he apparently carefully selects them to be sure that they won't know about the show beforehand. One time he got punk'd because someone did know. He said in an interview offshow that he records hours long interviews and cuts down his favorite highlights though, so hopefully those full interviews get released

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;51089740]how come everytime you post your opinion it seems like you've literally never even seen the thing you're criticizing edit: caseinpoint[/QUOTE] I guess my opinion is different? [editline]22nd September 2016[/editline] Some might even say "unpopular"

eric andre is random humor and that's fine because he actually knows comedic timing

I kinda wish Eric Andre focused more on the interviews and not the skits.

I really wish slooty wasn't a word people actually use

I think jokes like "DESIGNATED SHITTING STREETS" that make fun of a quirk of other people's culture are pretty racist and not that funny.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51083786]Communism does inherently have a state[/QUOTE] What? The definition of communism is a classless, stateless, moneyless society. Communism with a state wouldn't be communism, it'd be state socialism.

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;51090859]Call of Duty Ghosts was fine. Nothing special, but fine. It just came out when everyone was tired of Call of Duty and it sure as hell wasn't worth $80[/QUOTE] it was also a mess that ran like shit on the pc even though it looks like ass

Practical effects are not the end-all to filmmaking that some people think they are. It's just as easy to tell when something is a scale model or a puppet as it is to tell when something is computer generated.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51090272]I think jokes like "DESIGNATED SHITTING STREETS" that make fun of a quirk of other people's culture are pretty racist and not that funny.[/QUOTE] public defecation isnt a quirk, its a health risk

roman civilisation wasn't really that great - about half of its history is that of stagnation in pretty much every area (arts, science, economy, etc) with a backdrop of persistent economic and demographic decline. more progress was made in science, philosophy, architecture and technology during the middle ages by a few disparate monks and scholars than in the entire history of the roman empire in the five centuries from augustus to zeno

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51091295]roman civilisation wasn't really that great - about half of its history is that of stagnation in pretty much every area (arts, science, economy, etc) with a backdrop of persistent economic and demographic decline. more progress was made in science, philosophy, architecture and technology during the middle ages by a few disparate monks and scholars than in the entire history of the roman empire in the five centuries from augustus to zeno[/QUOTE] greek civilization > roman civilization

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51091295]roman civilisation wasn't really that great - about half of its history is that of stagnation in pretty much every area (arts, science, economy, etc) with a backdrop of persistent economic and demographic decline. more progress was made in science, philosophy, architecture and technology during the middle ages by a few disparate monks and scholars than in the entire history of the roman empire in the five centuries from augustus to zeno[/QUOTE] Defining the greatness of civilisations based upon 'progress' is a really weird metric to use. It pretty much guarantees that the greatest civilisation will always be today's, since obviously today we have the accumulated knowledge of humanity as a backing. Rather useless tbh. [editline]23rd September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Bathtub;51091313]greek civilization > roman civilization[/QUOTE] Classical Greece best Greece ὦ φίλε

[QUOTE=Bathtub;51091313]greek civilization > roman civilization[/QUOTE] did greeks have a horse as a senator? I thought not. Vote Rome for party animal civilization 2016

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51091295]roman civilisation wasn't really that great - about half of its history is that of stagnation in pretty much every area (arts, science, economy, etc) with a backdrop of persistent economic and demographic decline. more progress was made in science, philosophy, architecture and technology during the middle ages by a few disparate monks and scholars than in the entire history of the roman empire in the five centuries from augustus to zeno[/QUOTE] this is a bit shortsighted isn't roman culture the foundation of medieval european culture? especially where the core of christianity is concerned?

[QUOTE====;51090847]What? The definition of communism is a classless, stateless, moneyless society. Communism with a state wouldn't be communism, it'd be state socialism.[/QUOTE] There's various definitions but the one I'm referring to are the revolutionary socialists who believe in a transition period. [sp]leftism is a clusterfuck with definitions. even before we get to right wing people coming up with their own[/sp]

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51092769] [sp]leftism is a clusterfuck with definitions. even before we get to right wing people coming up with their own[/sp][/QUOTE] As a marxist-leninist-maoist I can safely say that Trotskyist-maoist-thirdworldists are bourgeois counter-revolutionary scum and must be eradicated before the workers can seize the means of production. - said every leftist revolutionary group ever, eventually.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;51091892]Defining the greatness of civilisations based upon 'progress' is a really weird metric to use. It pretty much guarantees that the greatest civilisation will always be today's, since obviously today we have the accumulated knowledge of humanity as a backing. Rather useless tbh.[/QUOTE] it was also shit for the reason that it had a dysfunctional political system, economy, and half of all the taxes went to supporting the army. the progress I refer to means that the intellectual atmosphere was stagnant. you had no scientists or philosophers of any real serious calibre that made active efforts. little was done to investigate the world, develop new fields of inquiry, or the like. instead it seems they gave up and everybody became stoics. plus there was persistent economic and demographic decline from at least the 2nd century - one the roman state consistently failed to address [editline]23rd September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sector 7;51092133]this is a bit shortsighted isn't roman culture the foundation of medieval european culture? especially where the core of christianity is concerned?[/QUOTE] in some ways yes, but most of the medieval world grew out of the migrating tribes besides the church, we can't actually attribute very much to the romans save for them transmitting greek knowledge to us, some legal systems, and some other small things here and there what survived of roman civilization into the medieval period was the useful stuff people liked - which is to say not much, because roman civilization didn't add much to the world that the Persians, Greeks, etc hadn't already done

Scarce is a nice guy. I think Idubbbz was a little harsh on him.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51093028]it was also shit for the reason that it had a dysfunctional political system, economy, and half of all the taxes went to supporting the army. the progress I refer to means that the intellectual atmosphere was stagnant. you had no scientists or philosophers of any real serious calibre that made active efforts. little was done to investigate the world, develop new fields of inquiry, or the like. instead it seems they gave up and everybody became stoics. plus there was persistent economic and demographic decline from at least the 2nd century - one the roman state consistently failed to address[/QUOTE] The idea of progress and the search for knowledge (as we understand) is so rooted in the post-enlightenment zeitgeist that it isn't particularly fair or useful to judge the Romans by, as they operated under different pretenses. The only conclusion you can really draw from it is 'the Romans did x, but we know that they should have done y because of z', which ignores their reasoning and is just the benefit of hindsight. What's that do to further our knowledge of the Romans or judge their impact on today? nothing really. We may know better than them about fiscal matters, architecture etc. but they are still impressive considering what they achieved, how they went about doing it, and how it's effects are still felt today. I don't think we should discredit that for some pointless ranking of 'greatness'

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;51093639]The idea of progress and the search for knowledge (as we understand) is so rooted in the post-enlightenment zeitgeist that it isn't particularly fair or useful to judge the Romans by, as they operated under different pretenses. The only conclusion you can really draw from it is 'the Romans did x, but we know that they should have done y because of z', which ignores their reasoning and is just the benefit of hindsight. What's that do to further our knowledge of the Romans or judge their impact on today? nothing really. We may know better than them about fiscal matters, architecture etc. but they are still impressive considering what they achieved, how they went about doing it, and how it's effects are still felt today. I don't think we should discredit that for some pointless ranking of 'greatness'[/QUOTE] except its not progress and the post-enlightenment zeitgeist the fact is that roman civilization was usually in decline after they conquered the varied nations that formed their empire. roman civilization was effectively a giant parasite that slowly caused the civilizations of Greece, Egypt, Anatolia, etc to wither considerably. whats impressive is the fact they had an army that managed to conquer everybody. there's nothing else impressive about the romans because all they did was ransack places en masse and steal from the subjected. once they ran out of places to conquer this entire system they had developed began to inevitably contract and then collapse. compared to Hellenic civilization prior to them, and to medieval civilization which succeeded them - the roman era seems to be one of persistent rot

I really find 'trespassers will be shot' signs, especially ones that play up how dangerous the shooter is, like these; [img]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/5d/44/e6/5d44e67abcaa3e44c0056d22c14941b3.jpg[/img] to be completely psychotic, especially since they seem to be placed around farms or something where there are huge bits of empty land. A stronger case could be made for actually entering someone's house, but I don't think you should pay with your life if you walk on someone's front yard.

^ Some people seem to have home invasion fantasies, it's like they get a hard on at the idea of getting to legally shoot someone.

[QUOTE=Kljunas;51093783]^ Some people seem to have home invasion fantasies, it's like they get a hard on at the idea of getting to legally shoot someone.[/QUOTE] Heck some people just have outright [I]killing[/I] fantasies. Remember Broseph_?

I really like the Uncle Ben origin, for me it doesn't get old, and I'm sort of disappointed some people want it to be skipped over in the MCU. I sincerely hope there's a Raimi-trilogy esque intro with it as slides in the new movie.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51094156]I feel like no one actually remembered this guy until the infamous users thread. Ive seen his name everywhere only since the thread was made.[/QUOTE] Ever since that thread where he got perma'd he's been my go-to example of crazy gun nut.

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;51093939]I really like the Uncle Ben origin, for me it doesn't get old, and I'm sort of disappointed some people want it to be skipped over in the MCU. I sincerely hope there's a Raimi-trilogy esque intro with it as slides in the new movie.[/QUOTE] Do we really have to watch Uncle Ben die again :disappoint:

what is so wrong with that it doesn't get old to me [editline]23rd September 2016[/editline] plus this would be the final time since we just hit MCU status