|>> || 1512615621498.jpg -(48563B / 47.42KB, 345x263) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. |
>> reinterpretations on what arguments these people should have madeYa dink, did you ever stop to think for one second that maybe one person was posting under multiple IDs? As far as I can tell, it is just me and Guinan you have been railing at.
This pic is you for this entire thread. Someone makes a simple silly comment, you don't like what that comment implies so you misinterpret it as making some grand argument, people explain to you that what they're saying isn't what you're misinterpreting them as saying, then you get more and more buttmad that what they're saying isn't consistent with your misinterpretation. It's painfully dumb to observe.
>> if everyone is racist, then what's the point of calling someone a racist?The point was not that he was racist at all, it was that he is unsubtle in handling a whole range of topics, violence and race among them, and that this was evidence of his range as a director in general. You then decided to interpret this backwards, as being all about pinning a no-no word on him and denying he should direct ST because of that, and then acted like you noticed something clever when you said 'hey, look, you guys are thinking something backwards!' it's like watching babby solve it's first word problem, it's pathetic.
>>you're not free to try and back up that opinion by making some asinine and downright illogical allegation that he's some racist snob because he confronts racial themes No, not because. NOT BECAUSE! Do you get that? If you want to hamfist what is being said into your 'strawman' typology, it's that 'because of how he handles race and violence, in some ways he's not a very good director, or at least not one with a broad directorial range.' And, where do you get off man? I'm perfectly free to hold the opinion that QT is racist, if that's what making you so mad, I'll say it more, QT is a person who uses his license and position to get away with making racial comments that other lesser people wouldn't be able to, and it has a detrimental effect on the aesthetic value of his craft. It's inelegant and a demonstration of his narrow range as a director, which is the only reason it was brought up in the first place. I defended him after Django on this point, but after he turned Jackson into the most hateful ultra-racist 'anti-racist' stereotype imaginable in Hateful Eight, I couldn't anymore. That's my aesthetic assessment, you can't do anything about it. I'm not the first person to think this, I could link you reams of articles, but what would be the point? It's an aesthetic judgement, de gustibus non est disputandum mother fucker.
>> because he confronts racial themes
To review: you're shitting up a perfectly good thread by spergtastically bringing us all back to an argument no one is trying to have with you, shadow boxing with your own misinterpretations while patting yourself on the back 'lol got em-'. It's sad, annoying, and you should stop.