American Gods

Khane · Jun 13, 2017

That's an awful big screenshot of something anyone can see when they click "List"

jayrebb · Jun 13, 2017

Xevy said:
I don't start the political shit and I generally just stop responding because these circle jerk regards could go forever. Just look at the solidarity upvotes and who's doing them. Might as well be reach around icons.

Compared to the General section alt-right orgy with the same 5 or 6 guys blowing each other at varied velocities and vectors.....No complaints here.

Lithose · Jun 13, 2017

Khane said:
That's an awful big screenshot of something anyone can see when they click "List"

I know it's awful big. It's okay though, I gave you a reach around to soothe the butthurt its caused.

Enzee · Jun 13, 2017

I hit the spoiler button on lithose post and immediately did an eye roll. How did I know he'd vomit forth multiple pages of overly verbose explanations that continue to miss the point. And no, I'm not touching that cesspool of a thread. You were the one who kept escalating this argument. I made one short comment early on, got ridiculed, responded with a relatively short answer and then the bullshit kept coming.

First of all, no, the medium in which an idea is presented has absolutely no bearing on the value of the idea. It has a bearing on the IMPACT that idea makes, the awareness of the idea, yes, but not the thought process behind it whatsoever. A moron on a blog or a moron on TV is still a moron. By your logic, the AC chick's argument would be less ridiculous if I simply posted a transcript of it on this message board, since the medium it's shown on affects the validity of the argument. Same exact argument, word for word, but now it's on a message board so it's less dumb. Sure, ok. -_-

Even just skimming your post, I can already tell you're making the exact same mistakes almost any 'meninist' or alt-right shitlord makes. Using your own definition of racism, ignoring the context most SJWs use it in, and mixing up degrees of severity.

It's not possible for a minority to be guilty of 'fragility' because they aren't in power. An individual can be overly sensitive, yes, but the term refers to someone being in an advantaged position and then being upset when they aren't in AS advantaged a position, while acting as if they are somehow hurt the most now. If you have a million dollars, and I have zero. Giving me 100k and saying I'm rich and you are broke now would be an example of fragility. The term does not mean only white males are capable of fragility in the abstract sense, it means that due to the overwhelming advantaged position they have IN AMERICA compared to everyone else they are the only ones who qualify for the term in the first place. In China, it would be possible for Chinese men to be guilty of fragility, sure, as they would be the majority there, but we aren't in China. The fact that you keep trying to show examples of how 'non-white' people are guilty of fragility is EXACTLY what they are fucking talking about in the first place.

The SJW usage of racism is more accurately what you'd call 'institutionalized racism'. Almost every time they use that term, they are talking about ongoing discrimination and prejudice, not isolated occurrences. When a statement like 'white people are racist' causes you to get triggered, you are proving their point. Technically, the sentence itself could be interpreted to mean 'ALL white people are as racist as the KKK' which seems to be how most of you take it, but that's incorrect. That form of extreme racism is (or was) pretty much agreed to be wrong, so it stopped being a discussion. Until the rise of the nazi alt-righters, that is. What it actually means is "whether they mean to or not, many white people contribute to a society that continues to give them more advantages then minorities. Not ALL white people make judgments based on skin color, but many do so without even knowing it."

That's why you get so mad at statements like 'black people can't be racist' because you are already misunderstanding the sentence. In the manner they are referring, that statement IS true. In the manner you all choose to take it, it's not. Then, you go off on some tangent about how a black person wronged you at some point, or some woman acted crazy.. all to show 'no.. but there are bad minorities and females too! Stop attacking me!' as if it's a counterpoint, when it has no bearing on what was said. You should only feel attacked by those statements if you know they actually apply to you.

edit: but, I'm done after this. Your fundamental misunderstanding of the actual problems and vocabulary makes a legitimate discussion impossible with you. I only responded to the last one for certain other people's sake. I have no misgivings, or intention, about changing your mind at all.

Leadsalad · Jun 13, 2017

You are certified to have donkey brains. I don't know any other way to convey this to you.

a_skeleton_00 · Jun 13, 2017

Both sides have spoken, the good thing here is this show is so good that it causes dialogue, and whether it's the undertones meant to be there or not, the show still rocks.

Glad we have titles that can cause conversation, compared to the horrible writing of like 2008 to 2014. Can't remember when the writer strike was...

It killed lost, heroes, etc.

Lithose · Jun 13, 2017

Enzee said:
I hit the spoiler button on lithose post and immediately did an eye roll. How did I know he'd vomit forth multiple pages of overly verbose explanations that continue to miss the point. And no, I'm not touching that cesspool of a thread. You were the one who kept escalating this argument. I made one short comment early on, got ridiculed, responded with a relatively short answer and then the bullshit kept coming.

First of all, no, the medium in which an idea is presented has absolutely no bearing on the value of the idea. It has a bearing on the IMPACT that idea makes, the awareness of the idea, yes, but not the thought process behind it whatsoever. A moron on a blog or a moron on TV is still a moron. By your logic, the AC chick's argument would be less ridiculous if I simply posted a transcript of it on this message board, since the medium it's shown on affects the validity of the argument. Same exact argument, word for word, but now it's on a message board so it's less dumb. Sure, ok. -_-

Even just skimming your post, I can already tell you're making the exact same mistakes almost any 'meninist' or alt-right shitlord makes. Using your own definition of racism, ignoring the context most SJWs use it in, and mixing up degrees of severity.

It's not possible for a minority to be guilty of 'fragility' because they aren't in power. An individual can be overly sensitive, yes, but the term refers to someone being in an advantaged position and then being upset when they aren't in AS advantaged a position, while acting as if they are somehow hurt the most now. If you have a million dollars, and I have zero. Giving me 100k and saying I'm rich and you are broke now would be an example of fragility. The term does not mean only white males are capable of fragility in the abstract sense, it means that due to the overwhelming advantaged position they have IN AMERICA compared to everyone else they are the only ones who qualify for the term in the first place. In China, it would be possible for Chinese men to be guilty of fragility, sure, as they would be the majority there, but we aren't in China. The fact that you keep trying to show examples of how 'non-white' people are guilty of fragility is EXACTLY what they are fucking talking about in the first place.

The SJW usage of racism is more accurately what you'd call 'institutionalized racism'. Almost every time they use that term, they are talking about ongoing discrimination and prejudice, not isolated occurrences. When a statement like 'white people are racist' causes you to get triggered, you are proving their point. Technically, the sentence itself could be interpreted to mean 'ALL white people are as racist as the KKK' which seems to be how most of you take it, but that's incorrect. That form of extreme racism is (or was) pretty much agreed to be wrong, so it stopped being a discussion. Until the rise of the nazi alt-righters, that is. What it actually means is "whether they mean to or not, many white people contribute to a society that continues to give them more advantages then minorities. Not ALL white people make judgments based on skin color, but many do so without even knowing it."

That's why you get so mad at statements like 'black people can't be racist' because you are already misunderstanding the sentence. In the manner they are referring, that statement IS true. In the manner you all choose to take it, it's not. Then, you go off on some tangent about how a black person wronged you at some point, or some woman acted crazy.. all to show 'no.. but there are bad minorities and females too! Stop attacking me!' as if it's a counterpoint, when it has no bearing on what was said. You should only feel attacked by those statements if you know they actually apply to you.

edit: but, I'm done after this. Your fundamental misunderstanding of the actual problems and vocabulary makes a legitimate discussion impossible with you. I only responded to the last one for certain other people's sake. I have no misgivings, or intention, about changing your mind at all.

Wow, so you're full on Orwellian language dictation version of the cult. Nice, but don't assume "I don't understand it", Enzee. I know every concept you posted. However, creating some Newspeak version of double plus good words to convey shitty theories and terrible inductive reasoning fueled by out of control confirmation bias, which has built a near cult like ideology in Academia, doesn't make those concepts correct. I respond to those shitty concepts by highlighting how fucking awful the ideology is at accurately describing the natural world and I use the reasonable (Dictionary) understanding of words not because I don't understand your Newspeak, but because I'm intimately familiar with how twisted and stupid the premises are which your top down language dictation tries to hide. (And all I need to do is apply those premises objectively to show how they often contradict themselves, without the beautiful newspeak words which have the contradictions carefully hidden away in their advanced definitions, of course).

If I used the newspeak fantasy language you cultists have birthed, then I'm entertaining what can only be described as delusion. Like changing the word 'naked' to be 'clothed' when used on the Emperor who is, in fact, naked. You have altered language to avoid your own cognitive dissonance, because the ideology you believe in can not be applied objectively--since its so heavily based in post modernist subjectivity. In the end, I knew the mistake you made right away. You weren't arguing based on 'critical thinking', which is based on objective analysis, but 'critical theory'--which is dog shit.

Abefroman · Jun 13, 2017

lol, enzee is a full blown sjw. I'd rather watch that gay Muslim Super Saiyan butthole creampie scene again then read that fucking bullshit again.

khalid · Jun 13, 2017

Enzee said:
I hit the spoiler button on lithose post and immediately did an eye roll. How did I know he'd vomit forth multiple pages of overly verbose explanations that continue to miss the point. And no, I'm not touching that cesspool of a thread. You were the one who kept escalating this argument. I made one short comment early on, got ridiculed, responded with a relatively short answer and then the bullshit kept coming.

First of all, no, the medium in which an idea is presented has absolutely no bearing on the value of the idea. It has a bearing on the IMPACT that idea makes, the awareness of the idea, yes, but not the thought process behind it whatsoever. A moron on a blog or a moron on TV is still a moron. By your logic, the AC chick's argument would be less ridiculous if I simply posted a transcript of it on this message board, since the medium it's shown on affects the validity of the argument. Same exact argument, word for word, but now it's on a message board so it's less dumb. Sure, ok. -_-

Even just skimming your post, I can already tell you're making the exact same mistakes almost any 'meninist' or alt-right shitlord makes. Using your own definition of racism, ignoring the context most SJWs use it in, and mixing up degrees of severity.

It's not possible for a minority to be guilty of 'fragility' because they aren't in power. An individual can be overly sensitive, yes, but the term refers to someone being in an advantaged position and then being upset when they aren't in AS advantaged a position, while acting as if they are somehow hurt the most now. If you have a million dollars, and I have zero. Giving me 100k and saying I'm rich and you are broke now would be an example of fragility. The term does not mean only white males are capable of fragility in the abstract sense, it means that due to the overwhelming advantaged position they have IN AMERICA compared to everyone else they are the only ones who qualify for the term in the first place. In China, it would be possible for Chinese men to be guilty of fragility, sure, as they would be the majority there, but we aren't in China. The fact that you keep trying to show examples of how 'non-white' people are guilty of fragility is EXACTLY what they are fucking talking about in the first place.

The SJW usage of racism is more accurately what you'd call 'institutionalized racism'. Almost every time they use that term, they are talking about ongoing discrimination and prejudice, not isolated occurrences. When a statement like 'white people are racist' causes you to get triggered, you are proving their point. Technically, the sentence itself could be interpreted to mean 'ALL white people are as racist as the KKK' which seems to be how most of you take it, but that's incorrect. That form of extreme racism is (or was) pretty much agreed to be wrong, so it stopped being a discussion. Until the rise of the nazi alt-righters, that is. What it actually means is "whether they mean to or not, many white people contribute to a society that continues to give them more advantages then minorities. Not ALL white people make judgments based on skin color, but many do so without even knowing it."

That's why you get so mad at statements like 'black people can't be racist' because you are already misunderstanding the sentence. In the manner they are referring, that statement IS true. In the manner you all choose to take it, it's not. Then, you go off on some tangent about how a black person wronged you at some point, or some woman acted crazy.. all to show 'no.. but there are bad minorities and females too! Stop attacking me!' as if it's a counterpoint, when it has no bearing on what was said. You should only feel attacked by those statements if you know they actually apply to you.

edit: but, I'm done after this. Your fundamental misunderstanding of the actual problems and vocabulary makes a legitimate discussion impossible with you. I only responded to the last one for certain other people's sake. I have no misgivings, or intention, about changing your mind at all.

Jesus fuck are you kidding me? "Privileged", the whole concept of it starts by asking people to make value judgements based on a persons skin color. Black? Good race. White, evil race. Jew, evil race. Palestinian, good race. Play all the word games you want, that shit is vile and a gigantic step back for liberalism.

Quaid · Jun 13, 2017

Enzee said:
I hit the spoiler button on lithose post and immediately did an eye roll. How did I know he'd vomit forth multiple pages of overly verbose explanations that continue to miss the point. And no, I'm not touching that cesspool of a thread. You were the one who kept escalating this argument. I made one short comment early on, got ridiculed, responded with a relatively short answer and then the bullshit kept coming.

First of all, no, the medium in which an idea is presented has absolutely no bearing on the value of the idea. It has a bearing on the IMPACT that idea makes, the awareness of the idea, yes, but not the thought process behind it whatsoever. A moron on a blog or a moron on TV is still a moron. By your logic, the AC chick's argument would be less ridiculous if I simply posted a transcript of it on this message board, since the medium it's shown on affects the validity of the argument. Same exact argument, word for word, but now it's on a message board so it's less dumb. Sure, ok. -_-

Even just skimming your post, I can already tell you're making the exact same mistakes almost any 'meninist' or alt-right shitlord makes. Using your own definition of racism, ignoring the context most SJWs use it in, and mixing up degrees of severity.

It's not possible for a minority to be guilty of 'fragility' because they aren't in power. An individual can be overly sensitive, yes, but the term refers to someone being in an advantaged position and then being upset when they aren't in AS advantaged a position, while acting as if they are somehow hurt the most now. If you have a million dollars, and I have zero. Giving me 100k and saying I'm rich and you are broke now would be an example of fragility. The term does not mean only white males are capable of fragility in the abstract sense, it means that due to the overwhelming advantaged position they have IN AMERICA compared to everyone else they are the only ones who qualify for the term in the first place. In China, it would be possible for Chinese men to be guilty of fragility, sure, as they would be the majority there, but we aren't in China. The fact that you keep trying to show examples of how 'non-white' people are guilty of fragility is EXACTLY what they are fucking talking about in the first place.

The SJW usage of racism is more accurately what you'd call 'institutionalized racism'. Almost every time they use that term, they are talking about ongoing discrimination and prejudice, not isolated occurrences. When a statement like 'white people are racist' causes you to get triggered, you are proving their point. Technically, the sentence itself could be interpreted to mean 'ALL white people are as racist as the KKK' which seems to be how most of you take it, but that's incorrect. That form of extreme racism is (or was) pretty much agreed to be wrong, so it stopped being a discussion. Until the rise of the nazi alt-righters, that is. What it actually means is "whether they mean to or not, many white people contribute to a society that continues to give them more advantages then minorities. Not ALL white people make judgments based on skin color, but many do so without even knowing it."

That's why you get so mad at statements like 'black people can't be racist' because you are already misunderstanding the sentence. In the manner they are referring, that statement IS true. In the manner you all choose to take it, it's not. Then, you go off on some tangent about how a black person wronged you at some point, or some woman acted crazy.. all to show 'no.. but there are bad minorities and females too! Stop attacking me!' as if it's a counterpoint, when it has no bearing on what was said. You should only feel attacked by those statements if you know they actually apply to you.

edit: but, I'm done after this. Your fundamental misunderstanding of the actual problems and vocabulary makes a legitimate discussion impossible with you. I only responded to the last one for certain other people's sake. I have no misgivings, or intention, about changing your mind at all.

Power is dynamic and situational.

A white man's supposed 'institutional power' means jack shit in the heart of the 'hood. He will be at a distinct 'institutional' disadvantage in that setting at the hands of 'minorities'.

The definition you describe is nonsense.

Heriotze · Jun 13, 2017

Is the Hobbitization of this a negative for anybody else? I was really drawn in at first and then continued to really enjoy this due to almost perfect casting but it seems like it's going to end up a slog to get to the end of a very moderate length story that gets extended over as many episodes as they are planning.

For as catchy as the peaks are to even call this a slow burn is to not know what something looks like when it is even on fire. Season 1 is like a pre-burn?

Xevy · Jun 13, 2017

I really don't know how they plan to drag it out, but they do say they have new storyline (obviously as some episodes have been completely off-book). So maybe after the "main" storyline they can have an offshoot of just modern gods doing modern shit. I mean they basically do have an endless supply of characters to choose from.

chaos · Jun 14, 2017

a_skeleton_00 said:
Both sides have spoken, the good thing here is this show is so good that it causes dialogue, and whether it's the undertones meant to be there or not, the show still rocks.

Glad we have titles that can cause conversation, compared to the horrible writing of like 2008 to 2014. Can't remember when the writer strike was...

It killed lost, heroes, etc.

The show's got some problems, honestly. But there are enough good scenes to make it worth overlooking those problems.

One concern I have is that they're going to drag it out too much. Gaiman stated on twitter where he anticipates they will be by the end of season 2. Which is like...maybe a third of the way through the book? I don't know if this is a six season show, but I guess they can always accelerate the timeline if they need to.

Soygen · Jun 14, 2017

Enzee said:
I hit the spoiler button on lithose post and immediately did an eye roll. How did I know he'd vomit forth multiple pages of overly verbose explanations that continue to miss the point. And no, I'm not touching that cesspool of a thread. You were the one who kept escalating this argument. I made one short comment early on, got ridiculed, responded with a relatively short answer and then the bullshit kept coming.

First of all, no, the medium in which an idea is presented has absolutely no bearing on the value of the idea. It has a bearing on the IMPACT that idea makes, the awareness of the idea, yes, but not the thought process behind it whatsoever. A moron on a blog or a moron on TV is still a moron. By your logic, the AC chick's argument would be less ridiculous if I simply posted a transcript of it on this message board, since the medium it's shown on affects the validity of the argument. Same exact argument, word for word, but now it's on a message board so it's less dumb. Sure, ok. -_-

Even just skimming your post, I can already tell you're making the exact same mistakes almost any 'meninist' or alt-right shitlord makes. Using your own definition of racism, ignoring the context most SJWs use it in, and mixing up degrees of severity.

It's not possible for a minority to be guilty of 'fragility' because they aren't in power. An individual can be overly sensitive, yes, but the term refers to someone being in an advantaged position and then being upset when they aren't in AS advantaged a position, while acting as if they are somehow hurt the most now. If you have a million dollars, and I have zero. Giving me 100k and saying I'm rich and you are broke now would be an example of fragility. The term does not mean only white males are capable of fragility in the abstract sense, it means that due to the overwhelming advantaged position they have IN AMERICA compared to everyone else they are the only ones who qualify for the term in the first place. In China, it would be possible for Chinese men to be guilty of fragility, sure, as they would be the majority there, but we aren't in China. The fact that you keep trying to show examples of how 'non-white' people are guilty of fragility is EXACTLY what they are fucking talking about in the first place.

The SJW usage of racism is more accurately what you'd call 'institutionalized racism'. Almost every time they use that term, they are talking about ongoing discrimination and prejudice, not isolated occurrences. When a statement like 'white people are racist' causes you to get triggered, you are proving their point. Technically, the sentence itself could be interpreted to mean 'ALL white people are as racist as the KKK' which seems to be how most of you take it, but that's incorrect. That form of extreme racism is (or was) pretty much agreed to be wrong, so it stopped being a discussion. Until the rise of the nazi alt-righters, that is. What it actually means is "whether they mean to or not, many white people contribute to a society that continues to give them more advantages then minorities. Not ALL white people make judgments based on skin color, but many do so without even knowing it."

That's why you get so mad at statements like 'black people can't be racist' because you are already misunderstanding the sentence. In the manner they are referring, that statement IS true. In the manner you all choose to take it, it's not. Then, you go off on some tangent about how a black person wronged you at some point, or some woman acted crazy.. all to show 'no.. but there are bad minorities and females too! Stop attacking me!' as if it's a counterpoint, when it has no bearing on what was said. You should only feel attacked by those statements if you know they actually apply to you.

edit: but, I'm done after this. Your fundamental misunderstanding of the actual problems and vocabulary makes a legitimate discussion impossible with you. I only responded to the last one for certain other people's sake. I have no misgivings, or intention, about changing your mind at all.

Qhue · Jun 14, 2017

Reminds me that I haven't read 1984 in quite some time... I should revisit it. There are some iconic books that seem to take on new relevance and meaning as you enter different phases of life.

a_skeleton_00 · Jun 14, 2017

So let me ask, why are we worried if that's the plan, the slow burn?

Everything they have added for the show has been awesome, the Vulcan episode alone caused some type of terminal cancer on both sides that spurned a political argument instead of just enjoying the ride.

I could do an entire 6 seasons of this, we can nitpick it left and right and we will find plenty wrong, but your telling me you wouldn't watch random gods going at it, new gods we haven't seen with powers we haven't seen, all with dialogue from amazing actors and a huge budget?

This isn't CW level folks.

We have a GIANT leprechaun who is a bigger scene stealer than Tyrion Lannister, and we have some of the most layered villains in recent times.

I wish some things were different, but goddamn, let's bring this show on for 6 more years!

khalid · Jun 14, 2017

a_skeleton_00 said:
So let me ask, why are we worried if that's the plan, the slow burn?

Everything they have added for the show has been awesome, the Vulcan episode alone caused some type of terminal cancer on both sides that spurned a political argument instead of just enjoying the ride.

Yeah, I agree. Plenty of shows go out of their way to give you action and plot movement every episode. I'm enjoying this slow burn as we learn about the characters and their backstory. American Gods is about the characters, not about the end climactic fight.

chaos · Jun 14, 2017

a_skeleton_00 said:
So let me ask, why are we worried if that's the plan, the slow burn?

Everything they have added for the show has been awesome, the Vulcan episode alone caused some type of terminal cancer on both sides that spurned a political argument instead of just enjoying the ride.

I could do an entire 6 seasons of this, we can nitpick it left and right and we will find plenty wrong, but your telling me you wouldn't watch random gods going at it, new gods we haven't seen with powers we haven't seen, all with dialogue from amazing actors and a huge budget?

This isn't CW level folks.

We have a GIANT leprechaun who is a bigger scene stealer than Tyrion Lannister, and we have some of the most layered villains in recent times.

I wish some things were different, but goddamn, let's bring this show on for 6 more years!

I'll be happy if they have 6 season of content. I love the story, I'm a huge Gaiman fan so I've been looking forward to this for years. And the follow-up story, Anansi Boys, is imo even better.

We've all seen promising shows turn to shit because whatever network tried to milk it when they didn't have the content to produce results. That's my only worry. So far, I'm really happy with the content of the show. I like the additions they've made, I actually do feel that Emily Browning's probably the low point for reasons I can't exactly put my finger on, and I loved Czernobog. The additions and changes so far have been pretty mild and in keeping with the original, which makes sense since Gaiman provided them with content he had either planned or had to cut due to space and they're using some of that.

In the book, the story goes pretty quickly to the climax, which we could be 4 years or more away from. Just makes me uncertain.

a_skeleton_00 · Jun 14, 2017

Well guys it is very possible that this will get the LOST effect and suck halfway through and make no sense and not get finished up and it end up just being purgatory.

However so far we don't have polar bears or number sequences, we have villains with motivation and dialogue that although extremely slow still isn't bad in any way.

Flat out the reason anyone wouldn't/doesn't like this show is probably because of what they THINK it all can/will become, at least that's what I'm getting.

Soygen · Jun 14, 2017

Unlike Lost, this has source material to draw from and an "ending" is already written(if they don't completely stray from the book).

Search

American Gods

Khane

Got something right about marriage

jayrebb

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor

Enzee

Trakanon Raider

Leadsalad

Cis-XYite-Nationalist

a_skeleton_00

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor

Abefroman

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider

khalid

Unelected Mod

Quaid

Trump's Staff

Heriotze

Xevy

Log Wizard

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor

Soygen

The Dirty Dozen For the Price of One

Qhue

Trump's Staff

a_skeleton_00

khalid

Unelected Mod

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor

a_skeleton_00

Soygen

The Dirty Dozen For the Price of One