Are Film Critics Politically Biased in their Reviews?

[Shaderas]

No, he explicitly attempted to profiteer on it and actually succeeded. The guy is solely responsible for making MTGO community into shit, because he justified everything as a political attack. What exactly did attacking tolarian academy and a dude going through surgery actually accomplish, other than create his quartering edge lord persona?

Oh yeah... I don't like the guy all that much. Don't understand why he attacked the Professor... Edge, well, Edge (the M:tG youtuber, not the moderator here) has made some bad decisions in the past, and asked his fans to bail him out. I'm not really a big fan of the guy, he seems a little "douchey" to me.

Also, he's not solely responsible for making the MTGO community shit... it was a pretty shitty community to begin with IMO... at least it was when I was playing. MtG Arena doesn't seem that much better either, but at least emotes are limited (and there isn't any chat)

[Big Thanks]

No need to have the actual data. I see no reason to think Rotten Tomatoes is lying about this.



When you say something that's factually untrue, and it's so obviously so that I can't believe it's actually you not knowing better, I'll point it out as a lie. Every time.

We're not talking about a difference of opinion.



You're entitled to express your opinion.

You are not entitled to do so on Rotten Tomatoes, in violation of their user policies. Which these reviews were.



First, people trashing the movie because of what Brie Larson said while promoting the film is itself directly dishonest; that isn't about the film at all.

Second, people taking issue with Brie Larson's comments are lying their asses off about what she actually said.



Abusing a website's rules for user conduct isn't a valid voicing of opinion.

- - - Updated - - -



But we also generally don't organize a shitposting campaign against them. We just don't pay to watch their stuff.

Remember when "vote with your wallet" used to be a thing? Now, because these people know they cannot win the war with their wallets, because they're in the vast minority, they're doing shit like brigading to misrepresent how much outcry there actually is.

Again, you are 100% and the impression the site was bombed.
There is absolutely ZERO data on this.
ZERO!

You keep saying this was the case and there is zero data.

I know im jumping to conclusions.
But you sir are doing the same.

[Felya]

Cool good on him. That doesn't change the fact that I haven't seen a single video of his with anything remotely worth watching. And thanks to a friend religiously watching him, I've unfortunately watched a decent amount of his content.

Quartering is the only Youtube channel I have blocked, because the guy used to be just a small MTG channel, that’s part of the MTG Youtube community. Since he has been banned from MTGO and the pro tour, after shitting all over his former “friends” as SJW conspirators, he has nothing I am interested in. But, because I frequent channels he used to be linked to, the only way to get rid of him was to block. He hopped on the altright bandwagon and has increased his viewership, at least several hundred fold. He was the only altright channel that I watched go from a normal channel, to increasing altright rhetoric, as his viewership began to increase. His current viewership is 100% due to him tilting at around 2016, because altright rhetoric was resulting in more hits and even other channels deductated to his drama.

I was actually surprised that him getting punched in the face, then being banned due to fighting as a result, from a major gaming conference, didn’t make the rounds here. Here was a LGBTQ online personality punching an altright online personality, who he called a cuck for months... there is even a lawsuit up, because quartering is suing the puncher, for loss of revenue. Literally using the money he has made from pushing altright, as justification for the monetary damage. If you don’t believe being online propoganda pusher of altright pays, check the amount the guy claims he is losing from being punched in the face.

[Edge-]

This is why I said like 2-3 times that I hope the Internet is able to find an alternative to escape the shackles of these corporations. This is such a huge and dangerous trap, Facebook, Twitter, Google and hell knows what else, all enjoying this idiotic fictional personhood, all being able to control speech for their users, all immensely popular, and all of a more or less similar ideological slant.

Even if they weren't people they'd still be able to control speech (content) on their site in accordance with rules that users voluntarily agree to in order to create accounts and use their sites. I'm all for supporting free speech, but these companies, as with any company, should be given the right to determine what content they do/don't allow on their sites. Forcing them to host all content, even content that violates their rules, would infringe upon their rights as a company.

I wish I was smart enough to be able to find an alternative, because this cannot continue. The Internet gave voice to the voiceless. I love this. Now that voice is slowly being rolled back, as it clearly proved to be way too uncomfortable. I truly hate that.

Easy, these folks can create their own platforms like they did with Gab. But if they can't attract users or advertisers, that's an issue with their platforms that they need to figure out how to address. It's not up to other companies to bend over backwards for them.

Again, you are 100% and the impression the site was bombed.
There is absolutely ZERO data on this.
ZERO!

And your data to support that they weren't bombed is...?

You keep saying this was the case and there is zero data.

And you keep saying they were, linking to a whole lot of opinions from the "anti-SJW" crowd rather than actual evidence to support it.

I know im jumping to conclusions.
But you sir are doing the same.

Not at all. RT said they were getting bombed, there's no reason to inherently disbelieve them unless you start with the premise that they're a part of a grand SJW conspiracy. Something that's ludicrous and that you'd need to prove to begin with before we can go from there.

[Felya]

I was able to actually watch some of The Tudors series since I like history and one of the actresses, but I would agree he looks punchable. He's not that bad of an actor though, at least he performed honorably there.

Oh and I looked that movie you mentioned, I remember it causing some scandal because naked stuff or w/e. I like both actors a lot. Might give it a shot.

Oh, no... I recognize he is likely a great actor. The dude gets work, can’t argue with that. Doesn’t change my opinion one bit and if I tried to be “objective” by pretending I am not repulsed by him... the results will be lying... that’s not objective.

[Shaderas]

First, people trashing the movie because of what Brie Larson said while promoting the film is itself directly dishonest; that isn't about the film at all.

I don't doubt some people were trashing the movie (I'm assuming comments, I didn't really look into it), but on counter point, the Want to see/Do not want to see (or whatever it was called) seemed like it was working fine. I (assume) it didn't ask you if your desire to see or not was based on political idealogy, and probably didn't give a disclaimer to please base it on actual merits of interest/trailer/genre/taste, etc...

That being said, as I posted earlier, it was well within the owner of the websites purview to remove that option if he felt like it was being abused.

[Endus]

I would agree (partially), for this specific case.

This is why I said like 2-3 times that I hope the Internet is able to find an alternative to escape the shackles of these corporations. This is such a huge and dangerous trap, Facebook, Twitter, Google and hell knows what else, all enjoying this idiotic fictional personhood, all being able to control speech for their users, all immensely popular, and all of a more or less similar ideological slant.

There is no "controlling of speech". It's a complete fiction invented by people like yourself, because you're unwilling or unable to take some personal responsibility for your own behaviour.

What these companies are doing is no different than if I had a game store, and one customer decided to start shouting "I HATE NIGGERS" at the top of their lungs, so I kicked them out. That's not "controlling speech", that's controlling who's on my property, using my services. They can go yell anywhere else that'll have them.

And boy, those rules of conduct are vague trash, intentionally so. You were a mod. You know this. Gonna have to leave this topic before the nausea gets to my stomach for real.

They're vague to avoid anyone trying to play stupid edging games, where they go right up to the razor's edge of what's "acceptable", constantly nudging at that limit. With a more-vague rule set, you can take action against people engaging in those kinds of shenanigans.

That's an advantage, not a negative.

[Big Thanks]

Not at all. RT said they were getting bombed

Where?

Here is the official announcement

https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com...-some-changes/

All they said was they are removing the comment section because they felt like there were trolls in there.

[Felya]

But we also generally don't organize a shitposting campaign against them. We just don't pay to watch their stuff.

Remember when "vote with your wallet" used to be a thing? Now, because these people know they cannot win the war with their wallets, because they're in the vast minority, they're doing shit like brigading to misrepresent how much outcry there actually is.

Yeah, but that’s the thing. We didn’t grow up in this environment. We are around 40 years old. We grew up when the way to get the word out in protest like this, meant leaving your house. This is the reply we came up with and it doesn’t work:

[Shaderas]

I was actually surprised that him getting punched in the face, then being banned due to fighting as a result, from a major gaming conference, didn’t make the rounds here. Here was a LGBTQ online personality punching an altright online personality, who he called a cuck for months... there is even a lawsuit up, because quartering is suing the puncher, for loss of revenue. Literally using the money he has made from pushing altright, as justification for the monetary damage. If you don’t believe being online propoganda pusher of altright pays, check the amount the guy claims he is losing from being punched in the face.

Did he call Matt Loter (or whatever his name was) a cuck? I know he's said the same of other people, but don't remember that portion.

Also, he's claiming loss of revenue due to potential lost connections from being banned from Gencon as part of the incident. He had several appointments (not sure if there is a better word for it), there to meet with vendors to talk about and promote games.

I'm fairly certain he will win his lawsuit, but get much less money than what he is seeking. Still, I cannot excuse Matt Loter, a guy who TEACHES Krav Maga, for attacking this guy from behind. Honestly, he should have had criminal charges filed against him, as he's a trained martial artist. Also, he's a game store owner, and I find his violent ideology a little disturbing.

[Felya]

as alt-right which is questionable, because they have far more other visible flaws. Being right wing economically is worse than the culture side by far IMO, but yeh, that's just me I guess.

It’s not a smear... you shouldn’t have a problem with a label, when your actions don’t confirm it. Your post calling him a profiteer instead of a true believer, means you forgot the checks Patreon was sending out to closed accounts. What was the amounts they were complaining patreon was going to cost them? Why is Youtube a better platform than inforwars.com? Altright are just profiteers...

Edit: To be altright, you are either the mark or the profiteer. Since I don’t like to insult people, I just call them all profiteers.

[Edge-]

Where?

Here is the official announcement

https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com...-some-changes/

All they said was they are removing the comment section because they felt like there were trolls in there.

Starting this week, Rotten Tomatoes will launch the first of several phases of updates that will refresh and modernize our Audience Rating System. We’re doing it to more accurately and authentically represent the voice of fans, while protecting our data and public forums from bad actors.

Their whole article is aimed at this, addressing how these systems have been abused (bombed) by folks who weren't using them for their intended purpose. Do you need it literally spelled out? Because that's the core message of the whole post, dude.

[Felya]

Did he call Matt Loter (or whatever his name was) a cuck? I know he's said the same of other people, but don't remember that portion.

Oh yah, they had a very long feud.

Also, he's claiming loss of revenue due to potential lost connections from being banned from Gencon as part of the incident. He had several appointments (not sure if there is a better word for it), there to meet with vendors to talk about and promote games.

Yep, which didn’t exist before he became the altright voice of MTG and now the quartering. His MTGO ban, is directly responsible for his popularity spike. How many videos did he have on star city games blocking his entrance or the pro tour ban? His revenue is directly tied to his shift in programming.

I'm fairly certain he will win his lawsuit, but get much less money than what he is seeking. Still, I cannot excuse Matt Loter, a guy who TEACHES Krav Maga, for attacking this guy from behind. Honestly, he should have had criminal charges filed against him, as he's a trained martial artist. Also, he's a game store owner, and I find his violent ideology a little disturbing.

The guy came up, asked his name, then knocked him out. Yeah, quartering is going to win that one... fucking idiot... who does that? Just talk shit at him, like a normal angry person. Yelling is fun... I promise... lol

[Big Thanks]

Their whole article is aimed at this, addressing how these systems have been abused (bombed) by folks who weren't using them for their intended purpose. Do you need it literally spelled out? Because that's the core message of the whole post, dude.

"Bad actors"

What is a bad actor? Do you know?

I thought "bombed" by defenition meant people were abusing the system, creating multiple accounts and abusing the crap out of it.
All we have to go on that post is "bad actors"...
Am i a bad actor if i "dont want to see" capt marvel?

[Endus]

The guy came up, asked his name, then knocked him out. Yeah, quartering is going to win that one... fucking idiot... who does that? Just talk shit at him, like a normal angry person. Yelling is fun... I promise... lol

While I don't think it's a winning argument, I'd love for a case like that to drag out the old "fighting words doctrine" defense. It's never used, but it's still technically on the books as precedent; shit-talking someone long enough is, in legal theory in the USA, grounds that justify punching them the fuck out.

Before anyone shits on me for saying that, I want this not because I support the violence, but because this is an issue that needs clearing up, legally speaking. They need to negate that precedent. Making the case in court would either allow the courts to overthrow that precedent forever, or they would allow the argument, and it would be up to Congress to say "what the fuck, let's get a new bipartisan law to fix that nonsense".

[Felya]

First time I hear about this, honestly have no idea what it is about, if you have something I should read feel free to drop a link.

It was in one of those threads about it. I don’t seek that shit out, so I only see the best ones their supporters choose to post here. One of them was bitching about revenue loss for patreon and showed his less than a month cash out of over 10k. That’s more than I make in a months and I’m close to Sr level.

Remember... in order for patreon to care about a boycott, those leaving had to have been generating a significant amount, for a percentage of it going to patreon causing a significant impact to force policy change. That inherently means that altright rhetoric is generating enough money through patreon, that leaving them without a percentage of that income, would cause enough impact to change their policy.

[Edge-]

"Bad actors"

What is a bad actor? Do you know?

I thought "bombed" by defenition meant people were abusing the system, creating multiple accounts and abusing the crap out of it.
All we have to go on that post is "bad actors"...
Am i a bad actor for disliking capt marvel?

So you literally need it spelled out.

"Bad actors" are folks abusing the systems and not using them for their intended purpose. This includes using them as part of some stupid fucking internet culture war, which is not what they were intended for and not what users agreed to use them for when they singed up for accounts.

Is that clear enough for you?

[Felya]

While I don't think it's a winning argument, I'd love for a case like that to drag out the old "fighting words doctrine" defense. It's never used, but it's still technically on the books as precedent; shit-talking someone long enough is, in legal theory in the USA, grounds that justify punching them the fuck out.

I disagree... I saw a guy without a shirt a while back, crossing the street, with a giant swastika on his shoulder. I should be punished if I couldn’t control my urge to hit the gas.

[Endus]

I disagree... I saw a guy without a shirt a while back, crossing the street, with a giant swastika on his shoulder. I should be punished if I couldn’t control my urge to hit the gas.

Hence the last half of that post.

I don't want that case to be all "rah, punch all the dudes". I want it to clear up the "fighting words" nonsense and eliminate it. Either it should be illegal, and the courts can throw out that precedent, or it is definitely legal and Congress needs to.

This was me pointing out that the fighting words doctrine is stupid, but still exists.

[Big Thanks]

So you literally need it spelled out.

"Bad actors" are folks abusing the systems and not using them for their intended purpose. This includes using them as part of some stupid fucking internet culture war, which is not what they were intended for and not what users agreed to use them for when they singed up for accounts.

Is that clear enough for you?

So a person with an opinion is a "bad actor"

Im a bad actor if i dont want to see Capt Marvel.

We might aswell remove the "user review" system. Because is also going to have "bad actors"

Either people created multiple accounts or didnt.
If people did NOT create multiple accounts...there was nothing wrong in the first place.

If people create multiple accounts then the friggin user reviews are also pointless. The whole site is pointless. Everything is pointless.

edit: Sorry if im stealing your time. You are probably a busy moderator...i dont want to keep you on hold for long :S but i can never shut up