robinnn

I am addressing this once.

I am NOT straight.

I kissed men my entire life. I was a swimmer, wrestler, and pro bodybuilder. I was a Boy Scout for 10 years. I spent all my schooling within the Roman Catholic parochial system.

That being said, I’ve had my fair share of male on female dreams and that’s how I know I’m absolutely positively not a heterosexual. I’ve never acted on a single one of those urges.

However, I would not speak to my actions while on the property of others, as that is under their discretion according to John Locke‘s 2 commandments (the other being to love slavery).

seriously…? I’m going to fucking throw up…

The pigs in question:

The moblins caught him while his sword was recharging, nothing he could do.

Umm, wow, okay, you want us to become a TOTALITARIAN REGIME like China? Maybe take a second and think, tankie. America only uses violence to interfere in the democratic procedures of ~~independent non-Western countries~~ ANTI FREEDOM AUTHORITARIAN ROGUE STATES.

If you think that America overthrowing the elected Sukarno by infiltrating the Indonesian military and guiding the slaughter of ~one million innocent people in Indonesia and propping up a dictator who would go on to commit a genocide in East Timor simply because Indonesia was developing independently and the government worked with the PKI, or the US working with Pinochet (whose government would go on to massacre left-wing dissidents and workers) to perpetrate the brutal coup in Chile because the elected Allende promised to pursue socialist policy in Chile and had worked on land reform/nationalization, or the US backing a coup in Guatemala (because the government had begun to block imperialist exploitation of their resources and labor) to depose the democratically elected Árbenz and inserting a military dictatorship that perpetrated a genocide against indigenous Guatemalans, if you think this is half as bad as the American government killing a single person who is not currently in power to prevent a fascist Nazi government from being formed, then say hello to Putin for me, because you're nothing but a Russian bot who will clock out of your shift at some silly Moscow time. WE BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY!

Alright mb, never been.

Yeah and Riley is originally from Minnesota. Also, I’m not sure her home is in a “wealthy suburb” in San Francisco even.

Overall it’s a fine inoffensive kid’s movie with a basic, at worst harmless message about not letting your fears get the best of you and staying true to yourself while also accepting change/growing. Your one example is a very very small part of the movie, and at that the most political/divisive thing in it.

Zizek lets half of his real views slip when he talks about “psychic breakdown and suicidal acts of violence.”

We know from Zizek’s condemnations of Hamas and his giving Israel a right to defend itself (per his words) that he not only offers up the view that Palestinian resistance is essentially hopeless squirming, that the “Palestinian plight” is sad and heartbreaking and yet there is nothing that can be done but gaze into an idealized future divorced from all conditions (this is Stephen Gowans’ wonderful view), but Palestinian resistance is both suicidal and evil, and whatever liberal weaseling within this we get it’s no different than Nietzsche’s eternal slavery.

The only truly just and correct thing for this Palestinian child to do in Zizek’s view is die in silence or wait to be saved by some Western country (whether it’s the US through his Kautskyite vision of the future of Western military intervention or NATO the peacekeepers, who knows!). He only plays the empathetic mouthpiece so that he can use the oppression of Palestinians to make some idiotic point about a mundane Disney movie. This is what Zizek does, he is worthless.

A right wing nationalist movement of the past that supported a monarchy

You have no clue what you’re talking about. The monarchy was already leading, and the movement was aimed at combating the brutal imperialist exploitation of China, so was objectively progressive. Nationalism can be both a good (progressive) and bad (regressive) thing depending on the situation (development of the nation, relationship with other countries, etc.). Using right-wing in this sense is strange, because we could argue numerous historically progressive movements were “right wing” by today’s standards, it means nothing.

Hmm, so you have ideas that if carried out would cause change in the material? Waiter! Waiter! One cup of Marxist tears please! I guess we’ve found something more universal than mere matter!

The dialectical materialism bit gave my multiple aneurysms. These relationships ("social constructs") are a result of the material! Are they honestly saying that they think this "social construct" has no cause but just is because of itself?

When the slave owner oppresses the slave, or a capitalist the worker, his ability to do so is because of his possession of materials (farm and factory) not his possession of materials because of his oppression except in continuation. Or put another way, commodities are sold after the worker is given their wage, so how does the capitalist initially pay the worker? He must have capital to start! This all returns to the material situations these groups found themselves in and how this progressed.

There is a common misunderstanding of dialectical materialism where people forget the dialectical aspect and point out any example of ideas giving rise to action as disproof. Dialectical materialism flips Hegel's subject-object dialectic which regards the subject (ideas and the like) as primary into a subject-object dialectic where the object (matter) is primary, or object-subject dialectic. The material gives rise to ideas in the human mind, which then are transformed into material action, or for another example, national culture is at first the product of natural conditions, then later asserts itself upon those conditions through human action. The argument this person makes goes: "By skipping one step chronologically the entire dialectic is flipped again and the ideal is the primary aspect, the material secondary! Did I just disprove dialectical materialism?"