I agree: Nostalgia Critic is the *worst*.

So.... why the 1 star rating? Isn't that the very definition of 5-star material? I'm so confused.

5 stars for evil, -2 because I don't want to encourage him, even indirectly.

To turn William Burns question to me around: How come this guy's shtick is so terrible, but most of you guys seem to think RLM is the cat's ass? I liked RLM when he was taking apart established classics like the Star Wars movies, but now I don't bother to watch his videos when he's reviewing current movies, because I always know exactly where he's going to go with it. At least with Doug Walker, you're got something going on other than snark snark snarkity snark every fucking time.

With RLM, it's true that you're gonna get some dry snark, but I like that style. (I could do without their opening & closing skits, however.) And to be honest, I don't know what the target of their snark is going to be; I don't really know which movies they'll like before watching the review, and their reviews almost always have some insights I hadn't thought of.

Nostalgia critic, on the other hand, is pure shit. Granted, I don't like his general style, so he starts out with one strike against him for me. But more importantly, his ideas are incredibly sophomoric or downright stupid.Note: I don't think his ideas are dumb because I agree or disagree with them. I think they're dumb because they're actually dumb. As in, not intelligent. Trite. Making obvious logical errors. Etc.

I thought people here liked RLM? Who thinks RLM is cat-ass?

I'm losing faith in the RLM guys, especially after their recent video trying to hand-wave away all the MRA butthurt over the past several months.

If you don't like the new "Ghostbusters" film, fine; I'm sure it's a target of legitimate criticism. But that doesn't change the fact that the MRA types were shit long before they saw it.

And I agree with Ana. I like the dry snark (of Mike) and earnest good-humor (of Jay and Rich) found in RLM. I also like the insight they bring, into both the artistry and the industry behind their chosen films. While RLM aren't above being crude and dumb when the occasion demands it, they don't talk down to people. They tend to treat their audience as if we are intelligent, rational human beings; people genuinely interested in the art of film.

Nostalgia Critic is a different beast entirely. Nos, from what little content I've seen, and DEFINITELY from this video, seems to eschew dry wit for WACKY VOICES waaaahhheaayy, informative film-school analysis for NERD REFERENCES WE'RE NERDZZZ gluugghhaaaiben. It's tedious, and tiresome, and God help me, but I sorta wanna punch him in the face and steal his lunch money.

Two stars, because that's the worst possible rating one can give.

my love for red letter media begins & ends with best of the worst.

Please cite RLM going MRA? I haven't seen anything like that in any of their videos. I go so far as to call bullshit.

I said they're trying to hand-wave away the MRA butthurt, which is not exactly the same thing as being MRA themselves. It's more a matter of running interference for them.

I am of course referring to the Scientist Man video; you've seen it. What it doesn't take into account is that, if Sony was somehow responsible for the MRA posts, we have to give them credit for how damn pervasive they were, criticizing the women-only Ghostbusters on any number of Web forums. This is the first article I just found discussing the announcement of the cast, in January 2015:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/new-all-female-gh ostbusters-cast-767610

The comments aren't exactly stingy with hating the idea just because it's girls, and remember, this is just a response to announcing the cast a year and a half before the movie came out:

---

"ROFL...Sony has officially gone full retard."

"Yeah, 1-2 females but all of them? i just dont see it. As of right now like i said, NO NO NO NO NO, but i been shocked before!"

"You got it. Epic FAIL. Whole idea makes me cringe..."

"Perhaps you have never heard of Christopher Hitchens. His argument as to why female comedian's are just not as funny as male comedian's comes from a scientific and evolutionary point of view. I strongly urge you to investigate, check YouTube. Chris wasn't sexist in any way, either, he wasn't a feminist but he was most definitely for equal rights and avidly supported the empowerment of women as a cure to global poverty and the violence of Islam ('there is nothing Muslim extremists fear more than a little girl with a book.')"

---

And I barely had to scroll my browser to dredge up all those comments.

If RLM wants to claim there isn't a heavy MRA vibe to the "Ghostbusters" pushback, they're full of shit and very transparently so.

Again, I'm sure there are legitimate complaints to be made about the movie, but that doesn't change the fact that people were bitching as soon as the all-female cast was announced.

RLM didn't say it wasn't happening, just that Sony chose to give MRA's an unrepresentative large soapbox by deleting comments that were negative but not sexist, then basing their ad campaign on responding to misogynistic criticism that they blew out of proportion in the first place.

I get the impression that you didn't watch the RLM Scientist Man video, either. It's most definitely not playing interference for the MRA's.

So was Sony going around to hollywoodreporter.com and a thousand other sites to make it look like MRAs were more prominent than they actually are?

I watched the Scientist Man video and it has the rotten stench of trying to make like men are being unfairly victimized, with very cherry-picked data to support their case. That's textbook MRA butthurt.

I got more of an anti-Sony vibe. RLM went out of their way to be self-deprecating, as usual. How are RLM supposed to be held responsible for not reading and responding to the Hollywood Reporters forums? I bet they could have found some read dumb shit on Yahoo News, but why?

I'm with Bort on RLM these days.

No matter how you slice it, spreading conspiracy shit/handwaving MRA involvement and going on about deleting comments (anyone ever tried posting about the RLM-themed brazzers porno on their forum/comments?) is pure pandering to the worst elements in the whole debacle.

Ultimately, Rotten tomatoes still has GB2016 at a solid 73%, so RLM are off the mark this time and too deep into the kneejerk to see any different.

A rotten tomatoes fresh score denotes a 60% or higher review when based on a percentage rubric. The Metacritic score rates the film at exactly 60%, which is not exactly great.

It cost about as much as Jurassic World to produce and has so far grossed less than 10% of what that movie did. According to Paul Feig, Ghostbusters needed to make 0,000,000 to be considered a success and they're not close to half-way there yet.

I wouldn't call it successful. It looks like Sony's own Robocop remake will beat it in the box office earnings, with a production budget 1/3 smaller than that of Ghostbusters 2016. It's kinda apples and oranges since Ghostbusters is a comedy film, but usually comedy films don't cost this much to make.

Adjusted for inflation, the original Ghostbusters had a budget less than half the size of the remake and had received twice the box office earnings, even with a stunted international release. And you wanna talk about Rotten Tomatoes scores, fhugeddaboudit! 97% dood.

You're choosing to focus on the sidebar about the RT score (Regardless of how RT scores are worked out, 73% is a decent showing for the 'most downvoted movie of all time') when the main thrust of my point was about the handwavery/pandering, which imho is the main problem. Have a look at the r/redlettermedia subreddit for a glimpse at just who, exactly the RLM guys are pandering to.

"r/movies mods are sjw cabal conspiracy sony made it all up reeeeee".

Even the avclub is less constipated about it than RLM are choosing to be: http://www.avclub.com/review/four-funny-stars-power-faithful-not-s lavish-ghostb-239314

"How are RLM supposed to be held responsible for not reading and responding to the Hollywood Reporters forums? I bet they could have found some read dumb shit on Yahoo News, but why?"

Because it pretty much demolishes their point.

Look, let's say I'm a global warming denier, and I find one flawed / falsified study. And I act like that study is the only evidence of global warming, but since it's an untrustworthy study, I make like global warming is a lie. Do I get to call myself an honest seeker of the truth?

And the RLM guys can't let it go that, apparently, if you don't like the new "Ghostbusters" then you must be a misogynist. I don't think anyone said that. I think people said that, if you decided before seeing the movie that you didn't like it and simply were not going to like it, you're probably a misogynist. The RLM guys saw it, they made their case for why they don't like it, and that's fine. But to keep going back to "... I guess that makes us misogynists" is, again, right out of the MRA playbook.

Mr Bort - RLM never claimed that "there isn't an MRA vibe to the Ghostbusters backlash". Rather, RLM conducted an actual statistical analysis, and found that the "MRA backlash" can only be demonstrated in about 0.08% of the Ghostbusters trailer viewership. Whether you believe 0.08% qualifies as "heavy" or not is, I suppose, entirely up to you - but that is the number, regardless.

"Not all Youtube manchildren" - and in this case, not even a tenth of a percent of Youtube manchildren.

As for the "Hollywood Insider forums" - no, that doesn't change the numbers, and it doesn't change their point.

If you went on the Chimpout Forums, you'd probably see quite a lot of racist comments. If you went on Democratic Underground, you'd most likely discover an overwhelming number of feminists. Check FurAffinity, and I bet it's wall-to-wall shemale lionesss Ghostbusters vore porn.

People have ppinions, and one can always find representatives of any fringe viewpoint if one looks hard enough. The question is not - "do such people exist?", it is "how prevalent are such people? What is the actual size and strength of this social group?" To the best of my knowledge, RLM has done the only real study into the actual numbers involved here, so until and unless you yourself have some actual data to present (as opposed to anecdotes and pure speculation), I think perhaps you should just accept this for what it is and move on.

I know you're perpetually doing 'a bit' EH but let me pretend you're being serious for a second.

"The question is not - "do such people exist?", it is "how prevalent are such people? What is the actual size and strength of this social group?""

The question is actually more like "how much does this group poison the well of discourse and how much do they affect women and women's involvement in media?" and the answer is "as long as the piece of string in the other unanswerable question".

It is inarguably 'enough to be of concern'.

And this, at the root of all the MRA/GB2016/gamergoober stuff is the crux of the issue.

Do we simply continue to ignore women who are hurt by this constant bullshit, or do we call it the fuck out when it occurs -even and especially when it happens- in channels/media we otherwise like?

#itsaboutethicsinfilmreviewing etc

Thanks bawbag. Some days I don't have it in me to deal with thing-doing.

>> "how much does this group poison the well of discourse and how much do they affect women and women's involvement in media?"

I don't see that as being substantially different from my question: "how prevalent are such people? What is the actual size and strength of this social group?" In fact, the answer to the question that YOU just posed, Mr Bawbag, is very much dependent upon the answer to my question. Isn't it?

And we have a pretty solid answer to my question. The answer is 0.08%.

Now leaving aside for the a minute the obviously begged-question of whom here is doing the most discourse-poisoning, one has to ask: do you and Mr Bort TRULY believe that 0.08% of the internet constitutes "enough to be a concern"...?

Look, I get that this is a very emotional issue for you guys, and it can be hard to step back and look at FACTS, rather than rhetoric. You don't have to admit that a major corporation has manipulated you into fighting a phony culture war; just remember what the actual numbers involved are, think about them every time you get in a discussion about this topic, and eventually you'll come around.

Nope. Didn't watch it, didn't respond to it.

And, while I'm sure it won't register this time any more than the last forty times, once again, I repeat: How much you like the movie doesn't fuckin matter. Doug's opinion of the movie is based on the experience of viewing the movie, and it's not informed by crazy conspiracy theories involving the secret alliance between Sony and the international SJW banking cartel. That's all I expect of anyone.

It's also a pretty good review. I enjoy agreeing with it, and I enjoyed disagreeing with it.

It's not a crazy conspiracy, it's online brand management 101.


What's crazy is thinking Sony DIDN'T do that.

Didn't do WHAT exactly? If you're saying that they created the backlash, I say bullshit. If you're saying that they attempted to exploit the controversy, well, of course! Anyone would.

Yes, I'm saying they created the backlash. 0.08% of the initial comments were of a misogynistic nature. Sony used their moderator powers to delete other negative comments while leaving the misogynistic ones up. Conveniently for Sony, the 0.08% became the focus of their media blitz. Quite the opposite of being a boon to "SJW's," Sony has given a soapbox to MRA's and obnoxious 4-Chan trolls to promote their terrible movie.

Come back after you've watched Scientist Man.

So for those of you just joining us, MRA's are now so embarrassed by the yearlong tantrum they threw over a movie having girls in it that they are currently pretending that the whole thing didn't happen and it was actually a false flag operation by Sony, who invented internet sexism to promote this movie.

I fully expect that at least one Olympic medal ceremony will be interrupted by a Ghostbusters truther seizing the mic and shouting "PAUL FEIG CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS!"

Sure is easy to argue your point when evidence is unimportant.

Sony didn't create the backlash; the MRA assholes did that all on their own. But they grossly amplified it. Or, to be more accurate, they amplified the APPEARANCE of MRA backlash. Don't get me wrong; the backlash was already there. But Sony made it much more visible, systematically deleted any negative comments that weren't MRA-tastic, and helped juice the the controversy.

JHM asked "Who wouldn't exploit the controversy?" Hopefully anybody with a conscience. They amplified the MRAs' megaphone in order to gin up publicity. It was kind of a shitty thing to do.

>>>Come back after you've watched Scientist Man.

What's in that video, the 19,990,000 deleted comments? Seems like it would be rather long.

>>Sure is easy to argue your point when evidence is unimportant.

And what is YOUR point? You seem to be trying to convince me that instead of being sexist assholes, the raging manbabies of rage were actually some other, more exotic variety of asshole. I've already said that i don't think it matters, and that's why I'm not bothering to do the homework you've assigned me.

Like it or not, sexism is the simplest explanation for what happened, and so it became the explanation. It certainly LOOKS like sexism. That doesn't make it true, and it certainly doesn't make it true in every case, but I don't care. please don't expect any sympathy from me when complaining about how unfair it is that your angry mob is being misunderstood, and claiming to have been manipulated into it is pure chickenshit.

Wow, another pile of ad hominims. Great.

John, the time you spent typing all that up, could have instead been spent actually watching, or even just in-the-background listening-to, that RLM video which has apparently set you off.

If you did that, your confusion, and I dare say also your anger at poor Mr Burns, would clear right up.

Just how angry do you think I am? All I said about RLM is that I prefer the Nostalgia Critic.

>>>Wow, another pile of ad hominims. Great.

WHAAT? Let's rewind.

>>>Like it or not, sexism is the simplest explanation for what happened, and so it became the explanation. It certainly LOOKS like sexism. That doesn't make it true, and it certainly doesn't make it true in every case, but I don't care. please don't expect any sympathy from me when complaining about how unfair it is that your angry mob is being misunderstood, and claiming to have been manipulated into it is pure chickenshit.

I didn't think chickenshit counts as an ad hominem, since it was applied to the argument itself, not to the character or motive of the person making the argument. I guess it may skirt the line. In my own defense it's a pretty chickenshit argument.

JHM and Xenocide K.O.'d by burns. Flawless victory.

THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A 1 STAR RATING, FUCK!

Let me just backpedal and claim that the 5 is for the evil banality of the nostalgia critic, one of the most insufferable youtube whores in existence. There, that feels better.

JHM and Xenocide K.O.'d by burns. Flawless victory.

https://youtu.be/hh3YzzHw9P4

Mike from RLM went through 5000 comments and extrapolated. If you watched the video, instead of posting massive text walls about nothing, you'd know where that number came from.

No, John. That's not what anyone said at all.

Sony went through their comments and deleted an unknown number of generically negative ones. Misogynistic comments were kept. EVEN THEN, only 0.08% of the viewers left a misogynistic comment - that is the absolute maximum, and due to Sony's deletions, the true number is likely to be smaller.

"Mundane Matt", whoever the hell he is, is representative of - at most! - 0.08% of the total number of people who watched the trailers.

You have been, and still are, flipping out over less than a tenth of a percent of the internet community.

To give you some sense of perspective here: according to Pew Research, the percentage of Muslim Americans who have a positive view of Al Qaeda is around 5%.

In other words, if you speak with a random person from either demographic - Muslim or Youtuber - you are more than fifty times more likely to find a Muslim American who actually approves of terrorism, than you are to find a Youtuber who, demonstrably, hated the Ghostbusters trailer because of feminism.

How exactly am I flipping out?

If Sony manipulated the trailer comments somehow, well that's interesting, of course, but I don't think it rises to the level of taking the raging manbabies of rage off the hook.

Homer, when I speak of the backlash, it is the backlash of which I am speaking. What per centage of the internet it is doesn't really enter into it. To use your analogy, we're talking about al Queda, not the internet.

uh... not muslims

*facepalm*

John, forget about the "manipulating comments" for a minute. The manipulating comments thing, that's actually something which *helps you* - so fine, fine, forget anyone even mentioned it.

0.08%, John. Sony's marketing team started pushing this controversy over comments left by *0.08% of the viewership*.

That is the actual size of this windmill you are tilting at.

>>Mike from RLM went through 5000 comments and extrapolated. If you watched the video, instead of posting massive text walls about nothing, you'd know where that number came from.

So this fucking guy read 5000 comments? And he has documentation of what the comments were like before they were edited? And what's the definition of "misogynist" here? Do rants about feminism and SJWs count?

See, even if I believed this, this is all a long way from convincing me that the comments to the fucking trailer were so important to begin with.

Is it really important to anyone that I swallow this fish story? I think we can leave it alone. But I may get around to watching this video now.

>>0.08%, John. Sony's marketing team started pushing this controversy over comments left by *0.08% of the viewership*.

That is the actual size of this windmill you are tilting at.

I didn't even READ the fucking trailer comments.

Look, all I said was that Sony didn't create the backlash. This story seems ridiculous, but it may be true. However, even if it's true, it doesn't amount to "Sony created the backlash." so who cares?

So, you didn't read the comments, you didn't watch the review, you haven't even seen the film - why do you have such strong opinions about these things, sight totally unseen?

I saw the film three times. I liked it.

Yes, Classic Evil Homer. Following wherever reason and evidence leads, and quietly encouraging you, my good friend, to do the same.

It is my never-ending battle.

I don't know which Ghostbiusters movie you're referring to, but either way, you're right.

That behavior gives MRA's a free soapbox and megaphone. That's why Sony sucks.

Also, Adam Sandler movies.

You seem to be implying that I could actually do something about this. Are you blaming me, or are you blaming Sony?

>>That behavior gives MRA's a free soapbox and megaphone. That's why Sony sucks.

If not for SONY, MRAs would have to make do with YouTube, Twitter, Reddit, 4Chan, and their respective blogs.

It's plausible that some idiot at Sony got this stupid idea. It''s far less plausible that this made the slightest bit of difference to anyone or anything at all.

Classic EvilHomer sets everyone up with weak arguments the way a momma' bird builds a high nest over soft grass. So when you fall it wont hurt.

It's when Homie's pissed that his arguments get airtight and brutal, I live for those days. The rare times Homie shows us his true form : Skynet.

Meant to be a reply to the JHM v EH thread. I got JHMs confused.

Is anyone here saying that a person can't possibly dislike the movie on its own merits? Nobody is. But the fact is that MRA types decided they wouldn't like it long before there was a movie to see, and made a stink far and wide across the Internet. Way up above, I quoted several of the first comments that came up based merely on the announcement of who would be playing the new Ghostbusters.

There was a knee-jerk MRA backlash to this movie. That doesn't mean that there weren't also people who disliked it for unmysoginistic reasons.

Kneejerk MRA types represent 0.08% of the community.

>>>Kneejerk MRA types represent 0.08% of the community.

Homer, I'm 99.02 Per cent certain that you're smart enough to know how stuffed with logical fallacies that statement is. It's fallacious to assume that everyone who attacks the movie is a kneejerk MRA, but it's just as fallacious to assume that every kneejeck MRA type is going to leave an explicitly MRA comment. It's fallacious that a sampling of this one site is going to represent the whole shitshow in some numerically accurate way.

I guess I'm going to have to watch this video now.

No, maybe I won't:

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/08/04/reddit-movies-hub-del etes-red-letter-media-video-critiquing-ghostbusters/

http://tinyurl.com/h8zztts

And the shitshow continues....

Socialism! Communism! Terror! MRA MRA MRA!

>>>2016 Ghostbusters trailer is undeniable shit,

The trailer was a miscalculation. The idea was to give you a little peek. Trailers like this were probably much more common 25 years ago. Anybody who wanted to stop and think about it could figure out that it wasn't intended as an accurate representation of the whole movie, but nobody wanted to stop and think.

This whole trailer-on-the-internet months in advance thing is starting to get away from movie studios. I don't think this is the first time it's happened, not by a long shot.

John, whether or not "every MRA is going to leave an MRA comment" is besides the point. Obviously there is going to be at least some margin of error - not every MRA is going to act like an MRA, for example (in which case, can he _really_ be said to be an MRA? Question for you to ponder). Just as, the comments were being moderated, so not every non-MRA negative comment remains. Some factors may drive our estimated percentage higher, some factors may drive our estimated percentage lower, who knows? There is a margin of error.

But 0.08% IS the statistic we have. You can't just ignore the facts and statistics without first offering better, more accurate ones in their place.

It's also worth pointing out that 0.08% is a number so small and insignificant, that even IF the best statistics currently available are off by several orders of magnitude, this "vast MRA-wing conspiracy" your corporate overlords have you so worried about would STILL be next-to-nonexistent.

Again, I point you to Pew Research, and the fact that Muslim Americans are fifty times more likely to support terrorism, than Youtubers are to hate Ghostbusters "because MRA". I am also trying to find data on Communist Party registrars, which is proving difficult - although I suspect that there are more of them than there are of these phantom Ghostbusters-haters you've been going all John Birch against these few couple months. I think you'd agree that fears over Communists and insufficiently patriotic Muslims would be overblown, yes? So - fifty times, John. Perspective here. Fifty times.

Nobody likes to be made a fool of, and I get that! But surely - and let me know if you agree with this - surely the best way to avoid being made a fool of, is not to stick your head in the sand and endorse censorship (eh wot? Seriously, John?) but to change your mind when presented with new and better evidence.

>>>Nobody likes to be made a fool of, and I get that!

Actually, Homer, you seem to thrive on it.

>>But surely - and let me know if you agree with this - surely the best way to avoid being made a fool of, is not to stick your head in the sand and endorse censorship (eh wot? Seriously, John?) but to change your mind when presented with new and better evidence.

What can one say other than: Classic Evil Homer!

Good news, Homer Brietbart is on your side! You don't need me.

http://tinyurl.com/h8zztts

At this point, I really don't need to elaborate any further, but I think it is telling that

a) for all this talk of MRA sleeper-agents, not one PoeTV user (including both Orcs and Gmork!) has yet expressed a misogynistic opinion about Ghostbusters.

And b) in all this time, you yourself, Mr Holmes, have only really been able to directly name three or four "misogynists" - AmazingAtheist, Shoeonhead, Thunderfoot, and that other one you hate so much. That's not very many misogynists, and bear in mind, each of these individuals are cultural critics who base their professional livelihoods around making inflammatory, attention-grabbing statements. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, they were all coming into this controversy LATE, with the a prior understanding that they should be talking about Ghostbusters in-relation-to feminism/men's rights. (this is significant, because it means Mssrs Atheist, Foot, Shoe, et al, are not necessarily hating on Ghostbusters "because feminism", but are instead simply reacting to the narrative already set in place by Sony Pictures and yourself)

Even Senator Joe McCarthy had a more impressive list than that...!

Yes, Classic Evil Homer. Following wherever reason and evidence leads, and quietly encouraging you, my good friend, to do the same.

It is my never-ending battle.

>>>Even Senator Joe McCarthy had a more impressive list than that...!

This is me, "flipping out".

"Yes, Classic Evil Homer. Following wherever reason and evidence leads, and quietly encouraging you, my good friend, to do the same."

This is me, "tilting at windmills".

"Kneejerk MRA types represent 0.08% of the community."

No EH, that 0.08% figure is only the approximate number of MRA types who happened to leave a comment. An overwhelming number of people didn't leave a comment at all, but it's beyond stupid to assume that everyone who didn't comment has a healthy attitude towards women.

The important statistic is the 12% figure, as in, dude says ~12% of the messages posted were misogynistic in flavor. Assuming that statistic is reliable -- though I have doubts about RLM's commitment to impartiality here -- that means every eighth comment was some MRA-flavored shit McNugget or other. That's probably closer to ballpark of how many people are MRA types, at least in terms of order of magnitude. Cheer up, you were only off by a factor of 150, give or take.

I hope the number is really that low, as it never seems to be here.

poeTV is a skewed sample.

Well, no. There are three problems with that, Mr Bort:

1) Once again, Sony was scrubbing comments, so the 12% statistic is admittedly higher than it should be. By how much we don't know, but the number is too high, and that much is certain.
2) The overarching question here is: how reflective of the community as a whole is the "MRA"/ "anti-feminist" position? By definition, then, we need to take the entire community as a whole into account, not just that fraction of the community who was inclined to comment (a fraction who, I would argue, are by their very nature much more inclined to harbor radical opinions. You generally don't comment on a video unless you feel strongly about it).
3) EVEN IF every down-voter followed the same trend as the commenters, and we could say FOR CERTAIN that 12% of all downvotes were due to the downvoter's dark, sinister "MRA" beliefs - that is still only 12%. Still. Only. Twelve. Percent.

We can, of course, fight for hours over whether the "true" percentage of anti-feminist warlocks lurking outside our doors happens to be 12%, or .08%, or 3.7%, or what-have-you. But I don't see how such a debate would matter to us, given that YOUR position is based on speculation about data, rather than actual data, and even in your own best-case speculative-scenario, the MRA faction STILL turns out to be a very small minority...!

You are, of course, free to conduct some polls, crunch some numbers, and come up with more accurate statistics about this most-pressing of SoC issues. And I hope you will! I really do. But until then, I'm afraid 0.08% stands, and unless you are comfortable being intellectually dishonest, your own positions going forward need to take this number into account.

Shoeonhead is a misogynist now!

AH HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

That, right there is the only response JHMF deserves when discussing gender issues.

The fact that it's the laziest possible response is merely a happy coincidence.

Someday you'll figure that reply button out.

AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Wow! Talk about your social justice pandering! Believe it or not, none of the reviews of Ghostbusters that I read even mentioned Columbia University's process for awarding tenure!

>> Let me be clear about something. I love this new movie. I feel like I've been waiting 30 years for this.

You know, John? For once? I believe you. I believe you without the slightest bit of reservation. I am perfectly willing to believe that Sony's marketing worked so well, that you now, quite literally, LOVE this movie. I am willing to believe that this mediocre comedy film, which not even the Nostalgia Critic Team could bring themselves to enjoy, has become a force that gives your life meaning. I am even willing to believe that being a part of the Ghostbusters Brand Experience is the best thing to have happened to you in the last thirty years.

It's a little sad, and I wish it weren't so, but yes; I believe it.

Have you ever read the book "Lovemarks" by Kevin Roberts (CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi)? If not, I suggest you check it out sometime.

In case you can't be assed enough to even read the Amazon blurb- Mr Roberts' thesis was that marketing should focus entirely on "love" rather than reason - that blind emotional attachment towards a corporate product is the best thing to encourage in consumers, and the task for advertisers is to do away with ANY notion of logic or evidence-based persuasion, even to ignore the actual, material qualities of the product itself, and instead go straight for the irrational, straight for the heart.

As you might expect from a "book" written by one of the most successful figures in international marketing, Lovemarks is mostly just glossy coffee-table bullshit. But Mr Roberts IS an incredibly powerful man within the culture-industry, and it is pretty obvious that the rest of his field has been taking this philosophy to heart.

i.e. it is no longer sufficient to convince people that they want to *consume* a product; rather, the goal now is to get them to invest their *very identity* into the product.

And that is what you've fallen victim to. :(

Great... more fucking homework.

>>You know, John? For once? I believe you. I believe you without the slightest bit of reservation. I am perfectly willing to believe that Sony's marketing worked so well, that you now, quite literally, LOVE this movie. I am willing to believe that this mediocre comedy film, which not even the Nostalgia Critic Team could bring themselves to enjoy, has become a force that gives your life meaning. I am even willing to believe that being a part of the Ghostbusters Brand Experience is the best thing to have happened to you in the last thirty years.

Homer, even for you, this is a cheap pointless shot.

I just want to go on record as saying I don't care what movies you like or don't like, even though you're one of my favorite people in here.

It's not a shot, it's an observation, possibly even pending an intervention. I'm trying to help!

You know what this is? This is hyperbole of an extrapolation of a reference within a tangent.

Is that you, Homer?

Because it's late night, and I have had a bunch of caffeine, I'm going to respond to this, though I don't really need to.

Here's what I said:

>>Okay, so somebody went through twenty million negative comments and selectively deleted 99.02 per cent of them? What about the videos from Thunderf00t, Mundane Matt, the amazing atheist, Mundane Matt, shoe0nhead, Mundane Matt, Mundane Matt, Mundane Matt, and Mundane Matt?

I think it's dumb to assume that a woman can't be misogynist, but that doesn't matter because I didn't say that shoe0nhead is a misogynist. I didn't say that Mundane Matt is a misogynist either. What I implied is that these people made videos that fit into a general pattern that suggests misogyny. I can't read minds over the Internet, so I try not speculate on the thoughts and motives of individuals. Everyone I mentioned is dependent on Patreon,and it's reasonable to believe that if any of them publically approved the new Ghostbuster movie, it could have cost them a lot of money, and that says something about the nature of the backlash.

That also applies to Comic Book Girl 19, but all she said was that she didn't like the movie. Did I mention that not liking the movie doesn't automatically make you a misogynist? Oh, only about 50 times!

... what?