The We Hunted the Mammoth Pledge Drive is on! If you haven’t already, please consider donating through the PayPal button below. Thanks!
Today will go down in history as a dark day for manbabykind. For today, the lady Ghostbusters trailer dropped. And there was much wailing and tweeting of tweets.
Let’s take a stroll amongst the wailing manbabies on Twitter, indulging their ridiculous rants.
And then let’s talk about what’s really wrong with the Ghostbusters trailer, which has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with race.
First, the manbabies:
There were those who pulled out the old “my childhood has been raped” nonsense.
https://twitter.com/M_Stewarr/status/705445173568868352
So my childhood has been officially raped now… #Ghostbustershttps://t.co/vrQ2jmwDc4
— Dat Dragons Dude (@dragonsfan1988) March 3, 2016
There were those who strenuously insisted that their anger at the female Ghostbusters had nothing whatsoever to do with misogyny, nuh-uh, but was rather a reaction to the trailer’s objective terribleness.
Anyone else not impressed with the new #Ghostbusters trailer? (No feminazi's its not because i hate women)
— Ryan (@DeeTownn) March 3, 2016
https://twitter.com/katmereMUFC/status/705463502278959108
There were the fat-shamers, because at no point in history has a fat person ever been funny.
New ghostbusters movie has that annoying white fat lady. Not interested, I'm shitting all over it! #Ghostbusters
— 8Bit (@The8BitVillain) March 3, 2016
https://twitter.com/NerdzurK1/status/705500568035397636
@voxday gender aside, original Ghostbusters at least weren't fat
— Константин Мокин (@goga002) March 3, 2016
My Ghostbusters have dicks. Long, swinging, dicks. They're also funny. These Ghostbusters have big fat sweaty vaginas and are not funny.
— Matty Almeida (@MattyCat24) March 3, 2016
There were Trump fans:
https://twitter.com/easternmney/status/705506566758383618
https://twitter.com/jaesex23/status/705499814415486977
Hell, there were so many Trump fans that one observer made a helpful Venn diagram:
https://twitter.com/BCDreyer/status/705475020076785665
There were even a few Knights Who Say Cuck:
https://twitter.com/kcD___/status/705472132185202688
Some raised the specter of WHITE GENOCIDE:
https://twitter.com/TheSamGrady/status/705434158152224772
https://twitter.com/TheSamGrady/status/705496761662578689
Some worried where the evil feminazis would strike next:
https://twitter.com/garmonbozia/status/705427963789979648
Others offered somewhat less comprehensible critiques:
#Ghostbusters, a new scapegoat for idiot hipster trash and feminazi garbage, fuck this obvious PC toilet fest.
— Rob Grundy (@Officer_Grundy) March 3, 2016
One Tweeter summed up the day on Twitter with a little haiku:
https://twitter.com/luketunderwood/status/705500826580594688
And another Tweeter left us with this existential question:
https://twitter.com/cleotrav/status/705505847129022464
Still another raised the possibility of a second reboot with a rather different cast:
Already working on a new new Ghostbusters that is played entirely by my favorite versions of Kurt Russell from every decade.
— ozempic godskin noble (@hamsandcastle) March 3, 2016
And this guy helped us put it all in perspective:
https://twitter.com/GregorySantos/status/705462910714183680
So what happens once we step back from all the manbaby whining, and the jokes about the manbaby whining. and actually watch the trailer? Well, be my guest:
I don’t know about you, but I’m a bit underwhelmed.
There are a few funny moments, but the trailer sort of steps on them. It’s hard to tell if this is a terrible trailer for a good film, or if the Ghostbusters reboot will end up being, well, basically a female version of Adam Sandler’s godwful Pixels.
But the really distressing thing that the trailer reveals is that the three white gals in the movie are the scientists, while Leslie Jones’ Patty is relegated — or so it seems from the trailer — to the tired, stereotypical role of sassy black sidekick who may not be educated but who “knows the streets.”
This racial/racist failure has not exactly gone unnoticed; it’s already inspired thinkpieces and polemics on sites ranging from The Root to The Inquisitr, as well as in innumerable Tweets.
The original Ghostbusters, however hallowed it has become, was infamous for a similar racial failure. That movie’s “black ghostbuster,” played by Ernie Hudson, was so forgettable, and so obviously a token, that the designer simply left him off of this recently reworked Ghostbusters poster featuring his three white comrades.
Despite all the complaints by angry manbabies about the gender-swap of the main characters, it may well turn out that the real problem with the film isn’t that it’s too radically different from the original, but rather that it is too similar — at least in its inability to imagine a black character as more than a token or a stereotype.
The one thing that gives me some hope is Jones herself, an amazing comedian who may have been able to transform her character into something more nuanced and less stereotypical than what we see in the trailer.
I guess we’ll see.
I wondered exactly the same thing. Considering that there were two of them in the span of 2 hours, maybe it was linked on some unpleasant forum or another?
Nope, but I did apparently forget to post the definition of what a “discussion” is, and that rather than a collection of singular posts by each person often tend to have many responses by each person to multiple posts by other people lol
So I saw a new post which I wanted to reply to amongst the myriad of others that I didn’t.
No need to whinge and cry about it like a baby though, its an online “discussion” so last time I checked dysfunctional feminazis hadn’t made posting more than once on a discussion illegal for men YET 🙂
But please let me know when that happens and I might consider altering my posting behaviour accordingly at that point in time, or not. Dependant on my mood at the time
Thank you for your interest though as irrelevant as it might be
Is anybody able to figure out if the troll is actually trying to say anything?
I think he’s trying to say that mocking necro trolls is a sign that feminists are jackbooted thugs who want to censor men?
I don’t need to point that out as so much crying, whining, stamping of ickle feets, throwing of tiaras in outrage and blathering on about the poster who dared to have the audacity to post more than once on a discussion rather than actually discussing the topic itself is doing a far better job of showing that far better than anything I could have written would ever have done 🙂
Which is made even more laughably hypocritical by the fact that in doing so several of you have now also posted more than once. But I am sure something so blatantly obvious is probably still beyond your comprehension
I never throw my tiaras. The ground is way too nasty and dirty for anything in the vicinity of my precious face to touch. Dirty floor tiaras are for inferior menz.
Plus, throwing takes too much energy. I make my manservants do all my throwing for me.
God damn, you manospherians like the sound of your own voices. That was 134 words to say “no u.” 91 of those words were in the same run-on sentence.
Tell me, Mike, is “uselessly taking up space” also something you do at work and in bed, or is it reserved for your leisure hours?
That’s just a matter of perspective.
Not having a brain so addled by being a part of the “twitter” generation I can manage to comprehend things that are more than a dozen or so words in a row and don’t need things dumded down to the level that a dead goldfish could understand nor do I need nor want to learn to bastardise the language with “txt spk”.
So wow, not content with throwing childish hissy fits because someone actually comments more than once on a “discussion” now you are sinking to the level of grammar Nazis,
You must feel so proud and worthwhile focusing on such “pressing issues” as a person replying to two different posts on the same topic.
Even funnier that some sad sacks scrolled back to find out if I had posted before which I had been totally unaware of at the time. Not that it is in the slightest bit relevant anyway as its actually common for people to post dozens of times in “discussions”.
Which I would wager many of the whingey crybabies complaining about me doing it have also done on this very thread. Although I wont bother checking back to find out as I’m just not that pathetic or desperate to have something to say that I would think to sink to such a level in the first place lol. But I am sure one of you mindless harpies will be straight on that “urgent task” when you have a few minutes between your daytime shopping channels, soaps and reality TV
He’s under the impression that run-on sentences are a sign of intellectual superiority. Jebus.
I take it from your tone and content here that you’re claiming maturity &or great age leading to good taste and wisdom as well as conservative use of written language.
Pfffft. You lose. I’m in my 70th year with exactly the kind of rigorous instruction in grammar and spelling that you’d expect from 1950s primary school. And I’m not the only one here with such a background and I’m also not the only one here who’s never touched twitter or facebook.
Lose the attitude. Don’t make silly, shallow presumptions about people you’ve never met. You may not do any better with getting people to respond to you the way you might prefer, but at least you won’t look like a fool.
Lol, funny you should say that as my post was in response to those exact types of “assumptions” in response to my way of wording things.
Something you “conveniently” seemed to miss, and where although you felt compelled to criticise me for making a comment about the way people choose to word their comments you didn’t feel inclined to extend to the posts I was responding to.
Hadnt the word “constistency” been invented when you learnt all that grammar?
In fact your post was similarly “wordy” but I will bet absolutely nobody will be coming along to make similar comments as the comments themselves weren’t substantive in nature but were merely petty, childish digs in lieu of anything valid or on topic to contribute to the discussion.
As for them being “shallow” presumptions I disagree. Somebody choosing to attack the poster on a discussion rather than actually responding to their points is pathetic, its not an assumption, its an observation of quite self evident behaviour akin to a child responding with “yeah but youre a poo poo head” when they have nothing worthwhile to say so no “presumption” is necessary as the behaviour is hardly subtle nor needing any investigative skills to be seen.
He thinks he’s made “points”.
Mikey, the problem with your run-on sentences isn’t just their readability (which is low – punctuation exists for a reason). It’s also that they give the impression of a red-faced, googly-eyed rage zombie screaming a hundred mangry words without taking a breath.
Then again, it’s probably a very accurate impression.
MRAs are always so emotional.
What points were you trying to make? You came in here to post a comment on an old thread, whining that women are childish and manipulative. That’s not really adding anything substantive to the discussion that you seem to value so highly. You started this “discussion” by insulting women. Why are you surprised that no one is taking you seriously?
@ej: Because Mikey-Wikey has a penis, and therefore everything he says obviously adds to the discussion because with great penis comes great brains.
Or so I’ve been told. By men who just so happen to be attached to penises. [/sarcasm]
Seriously though, I like that his (unsubstantiated) “point” was “Feminists are whiny, jackbooted little Nazis!” And now he’s acting all superior because there’s really naught but nonsense in that little ass nugget, so we’re obviously not going to address it with any sincerity.
I mean, if I walked up to Mike and called him a raging misogynistic rancid pile of cheese, he’d be slightly baffled at first, but I doubt he’d address that seriously.
Or if he did, I’d have to bring snacks so I don’t starve during his long-winded “retort”.
Skitt’s Law states that any post correcting an error in another post will contain at least one error itself.
I’m making cheap shots about Mike’s language skills because he hasn’t made any serious points. As and when he makes some serious points, I’m very happy to reply to them.
In fact, let’s start some discussions on weighty topics. Since Mike is a man who loves intelligence and takes himself seriously, he will doubtless have valuable points to make on the matter.
@ej:
I read your paper on API20E and ID32E profiles, and really liked it. I’m not familiar with microbiology as a field but I get the impression that the entire paper can be read as pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes.
I was surprised at the extent to which Cronobacter had been misidentified. Is this a common thing? What’s the story behind that, and is there literature on it?
@All:
Today, one of Britain’s police departments announced that it would treat misogyny as hate speech, “except in cases of domestic abuse which are already criminal and so are treated separately.”
Thoughts? I’m not comfortable with that exclusion for domestic abuse, but I recognise that overall this is a victory and don’t want to commit a Nirvana fallacy.
Why do trolls always think that their misogynistic insults count as points that need to be debated seriously? Why are they surprised that they’re mocked on a site about mocking misogyny? Why do they always assume that everyone commenting here is a woman? And why do they never, ever know that brevity is the soul of wit?
@WWTH:
Because John Galt.
I think the “haha you people have no lives, you scrolled up all of two posts to see I’d posted here already!” bit was the funniest so far, myself.
Mike, you’ve now compared two groups of people to Nazis: feminists, and people who care too deeply about “correct” grammar. (That second one is a bit ironic, considering how you insult those who “bastardise the language with ‘txt spk'” in your very next sentence, but that’s beside the point so I’ll move on.) To compare people you vaguely dislike to Nazis is to seriously minimize the horror of what the original Nazis did, and it ignores the existence of Nazis today. That is anti-semitic.
A few more thoughts:
1) “Txt spk” hasn’t really been a thing in like 10 years, but good try.
2) You did not join a discussion either of the times that you necro’ed this thread. If you enter a currently empty room, but one where people had been talking several months ago, and you loudly shout your opinions on that months-old conversation to the four walls, that’s not a discussion. That’s just you talking to yourself. And if you happen attract the attention of your neighbours with your caterwauling, thus sparking a new conversation, it makes perfect sense that the subject of that conversation would be “Why is this guy talking to himself instead of joining one of the many discussions in progress? And why has he done this more than once?”
3) Evil women “withholding sex,” oh no, how dare we choose what happens to our own bodies. Behold this great and terrible power I hold over exactly one man, who can go ahead and wank off in the bathroom if he wants to.
@EJ (TOO)
I’m glad you liked the paper. I hadn’t really thought about it in this way, but that description does fit really well. If methods are recommended by regulatory agencies to meet the criteria applied to a product, they need to be accurate. 80% correct for your target organism just isn’t good enough, especially when we are talking about such a vulnerable population.
There have been misidentifications of other species as Cronobacter, which means we may not be recognizing hazards when they appear. I can send you a couple papers, if you don’t mind sharing your email address. I don’t want to clog up the thread with a microbiology discussion (and I don’t want to link to my own work on a thread with a recent necro-troll).
And I got distracted by data crunching and missed the window. Ah well.
David, could you delete that, please?
@EJ (TOO)
Got it! You can delete the comment.
except it is about sexism and racism. THIS MOVIE clearly portrays that! it makes all the men look like idiots an asshole, next to barely competent women. its not funny, clever or witty in anyway. its a really bad cash grab turd burger, that claims the so called ”haters” are sexists, whilst trying to sell a movie that is sexist in itself. no manbabies, just people with an IQ over 5 making an accurate analysis of a really, really terrible film.
Dude. This is not even the most recent Ghostbusters thread! It’s hilarious to me that you guys claim you aren’t being manbabies while simultaneously necroing old threads to whine about a movie. Why did you even go see it if you hate it so much? What do you hope to accomplish by complaining about it here? I just don’t get why this meltdown seems destined to never end.
But don’t forget, worrying about rape is a “First World problem.”
*eyes go rolling under the fridge*