Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 01:54:37 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

Started by Wet Blanket, March 20, 2019, 02:35:01 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Shit Good Nose

Quote from: worldsgreatestsinner on August 24, 2019, 05:50:09 PM
I think the only reason this gets brought up at all in relation to Tarantino is it's something else to throw against him in this bizarre attempt that's going on to paint him as ultra right wing. I saw some fucking idiot claim on Twitter that if Tarantino had been born in the 90s he would march with Nazis. That's how fucked conversations around art have become.

I have been noticing an increasing tendency to brand any film containing realistic (or, at least, non-comical) violence as being, or at least erring towards, right-wing, even if the grim results of that violence are very clearly shown to the viewer.  It's not a new criticism, of course - cf. Death Wish, Dirty Harry, any of John Wayne's films set in the present day etc - but I do wonder if we're racing towards a point where it will not be okay to show any kind of violence at all or, worse, follow that violence with a subsequent twenty minute lecture about how "guns are bad, mmmm'kay?"  I sincerely hope that is me just being idiotically pessimistic, but then if you'd have said to me only 6 months ago I'd be seeing someone genuinely suggest that all future Bond films should ONLY be written and directed by women, I'd have said you were mental.

chveik

Quote from: Shit Good Nose on August 24, 2019, 05:59:51 PM
I have been noticing an increasing tendency to brand any film containing realistic (or, at least, non-comical) violence as being, or at least erring towards, right-wing, even if the grim results of that violence are very clearly shown to the viewer.  It's not a new criticism, of course - cf. Death Wish, Dirty Harry, any of John Wayne's films set in the present day etc - but I do wonder if we're racing towards a point where it will not be okay to show any kind of violence at all or, worse, follow that violence with a subsequent twenty minute lecture about how "guns are bad, mmmm'kay?"  I sincerely hope that is me just being idiotically pessimistic, but then if you'd have said to me only 6 months ago I'd be seeing someone genuinely suggest that all future Bond films should ONLY be written and directed by women, I'd have said you were mental.

you'd have to live in a odd little bubble to seriously think that.

Shit Good Nose

Quote from: chveik on August 24, 2019, 06:07:27 PM
you'd have to live in a odd little bubble to seriously think that.

Agreed, but the current everything is okay and nothing is okay all at the same time vibe makes it impossible to know which way things might be going.


If it's too hard, I can't understand it, etc.

I think it's to do with people projecting their own politics onto art and I think it's more prevalent at the moment because people feel so powerless politically, especially in the west. There's nothing wrong with political interpretations of art, but right now it doesn't feel like people are looking at a film and asking what it's saying politically, I think they're looking at it and expecting it to match their politics or they want to dismiss it.

Sin Agog

Quote from: worldsgreatestsinner on August 24, 2019, 06:16:02 PM
I think it's to do with people projecting their own politics onto art and I think it's more prevalent at the moment because people feel so powerless politically, especially in the west. There's nothing wrong with political interpretations of art, but right now it doesn't feel like people are looking at a film and asking what it's saying politically, I think they're looking at it and expecting it to match their politics or they want to dismiss it.

At the same time to this, though, the implied has now become the explicitly expressed.  You need look no further than the gulf between Reservoir Dogs and OUATIH to illustrate this.  The scene in that which kicked the most dust in the air was something that was never actually shown on camera, Madsen's ear-slicing scene.  The watershed has now become a watergardencentre, and it's only fair to expect a few cases of future shock as a result.  It is bizarre what a binary, Zoroastrian world we now live in, where our prudishness grows at the same rate as our disaffectedness to what was once considered extreme.

Shit Good Nose

Quote from: Sin Agog on August 24, 2019, 06:27:04 PM
At the same time to this, though, the implied has now become the explicitly expressed.  You need look no further than the gulf between Reservoir Dogs and OUATIH to illustrate this.  The scene in that which kicked the most dust in the air was something that was never actually shown on camera, Madsen's ear-slicing scene.  The watershed has now become a watergardencentre, and it's only fair to expect a few cases of future shock as a result.  It is bizarre what a binary, Zoroastrian world we now live in, where our prudishness grows at the same rate as our disaffectedness to what was once considered extreme.

Quote from: worldsgreatestsinner on August 24, 2019, 06:16:02 PM
I think it's to do with people projecting their own politics onto art and I think it's more prevalent at the moment because people feel so powerless politically, especially in the west. There's nothing wrong with political interpretations of art, but right now it doesn't feel like people are looking at a film and asking what it's saying politically, I think they're looking at it and expecting it to match their politics or they want to dismiss it.

Virtual karma for both of those posts.

sponk

I mentioned a Will Self review of Pulp Fiction earlier in the thread, but it doesn't exist. His articles about Jackie Brown and Natural Born Killers do though. They're here:












Weirdly I think there is a similarity in the reaction to Reservoir Dogs and OUATIH. People weren't upset by the idea of a ear slicing in Dogs, they were upset by how gleefully sadistic everything around it was and how needless it was. If it had been shown I don't think the outrage would have been worse than it already was. With OUATIH I don't think people who are upset are upset by how violent it is, I think they're upset by the fact that 2 of the 3 people are women. I think if Manson had sent three men to commit the murders and we saw them being killed there would have been far less controversy and far more people cheering Pitt on. But because it is two women people are ignoring who they are, what they were going to do in that scene and what they did in real life and just focusing on the fact you have two 40+ white men killing them. Why is the fact Tex gets savaged by a dog, beaten up by Pitt, then has his head stomped in constantly ignored? Why is emotive language always used when talking specifically about what happens to the women in that scene? Both controversies were reactions to real world events. With Dogs the UK video ban came just after the Bulger case and I think people saw or imagined the sadism of that murder reflected in the torture sequence. With Hollywood I think it's a reaction, especially in America, to how vulnerable women feel right now because of the political situation.

Shit Good Nose

Point of pedantry - Dogs was never banned on video, it was just massively delayed whilst that law was passing through parliament.

But otherwise, yes.

sponk

Quote from: worldsgreatestsinner on August 24, 2019, 06:58:13 PM
Weirdly I think there is a similarity in the reaction to Reservoir Dogs and OUATIH. People weren't upset by the idea of a ear slicing in Dogs, they were upset by how gleefully sadistic everything around it was and how needless it was. If it had been shown I don't think the outrage would have been worse than it already was. With OUATIH I don't think people who are upset are upset by how violent it is, I think they're upset by the fact that 2 of the 3 people are women. I think if Manson had sent three men to commit the murders and we saw them being killed there would have been far less controversy and far more people cheering Pitt on. But because it is two women people are ignoring who they are, what they were going to do in that scene and what they did in real life and just focusing on the fact you have two 40+ white men killing them. Why is the fact Tex gets savaged by a dog, beaten up by Pitt, then has his head stomped in constantly ignored?

Man bites dog? People are so used to seeing men being assaulted and mutilated that it doesn't bother them. Also some, probably a very small minority, of the people I've seen displaying that hypocrisy, genuinelly hate men and think they deserve to suffer as revenge for their crimes against women. Some of them say as much themselves.

Obviously I don't know who your post was about, so I can't say they specifically fit that description though.

While I agree that people who shoe horn identity politics into everything are genuinely annoying, I'm far more offended by the number of people who consider modern QT good cinema and therefore worthy of serious discussion. It's shit for cunts, who cares.

The reason people shouldn't bother with QT's insensitivity around race or gender is because he is never trying to say anything whatsoever about anything. He's an obsessive yet shallow geek and his films match his character. There's nothing more to him.

Shit Good Nose

Quote from: LynnBenfield69 on August 24, 2019, 07:28:49 PM
While I agree that people who shoe horn identity politics into everything are genuinely annoying, I'm far more offended by the number of people who consider modern QT good cinema and therefore worthy of serious discussion. It's shit for cunts, who cares.

The reason people shouldn't bother with QT's insensitivity around race or gender is because he is never trying to say anything whatsoever about anything. He's an obsessive yet shallow geek and his films match his character. There's nothing more to him.

Be fair - don't forget about the plagiarism.

Peru

Quote from: worldsgreatestsinner on August 24, 2019, 05:07:05 PM
I'd call all that really disingenuous at best. Break it all down.

We're never shown that he did kill her. Only that's what's rumoured. The one scene we see her in ends ambiguously. But saying she was a nagging wife again goes against the evidence of what we're shown. She's drunkenly berating him and telling him she's going to start a fight whether he wants to or not. If the genders were flipped Pitt's character wouldn't be called a nagging husband, he'd be called emotionally abusive. Calling her nagging is dismissive. At best, based on the evidence given, you can say that Pitt's character is rumoured to have killed his abusive wife. Suddenly sounds far less harsh, doesn't it?

Does it? She has about 20 seconds of screen time and her function is to act as a cipher for whether Pitt murdered her or not. He's cool and quiet, she's drunken and raging and this specifically acts as visual provocation for him raising the gun.

Quote from: worldsgreatestsinner on August 24, 2019, 05:07:05 PMThat woman has along with two other people broken into a home and threatened him with knives and a gun. She's already told her companion with a gun to shoot Pitt and she's charged at him with a knife. The thing that's pissed me off about trying to paint Tarantino as sexist are doing it by downplaying the actions of real life fucking murderers. How feminist was it when they took part in the butchering of Tate and her friends? Where was the sisterhood when a heavily pregnant Sharon Tate begged for her child's life and called for her mother before they stabbed her 16 times and wrote the word pig in her blood? So again, he didn't "righteously beat a woman to death for laughs" he beat a woman to death when she threatened his life. Pitt also kills Tex Watson in the same scene by stamping on his head. But people continually ignore that because it doesn't fit their narrative.

Er, what? Firstly, the characters in the film didn't carry that out - they're fictionalised versions. You're also leading your analysis through character provocation, which presents character as originating instance. Pitt's character didn't miraculously appear out of nowhere - he was created by Tarantino, who chose for him to carry out those actions, chose the length of shots, chose the level of violence etc. In fact you're making precisely the same mistake as the 'Manson Killers' do in the film - mistaking the movies for reality.

That scene is absolutely indisputably played for absurd laughs. Are we supposed to stay sombrely silent when the flamethrower comes out?

Quote from: worldsgreatestsinner on August 24, 2019, 05:07:05 PMAs for Hirsch. I think his punishment was insanely light but he did stand trial for the assault, plead guilty and received punishment for it. Now either as a society we believe people can be rehabilitated or we don't. If we do then we have to believe they can return to employment. Also, where was the outrage when Hirsch was cast in films by other directors? The assault and the trial was in 2015. He's been cast in numerous films between then and now and done voice work  on a kids' television series. Why is it only when Tarantino casts him it suddenly says something negative?

Read the post again, matey. It wasn't about whether Hirsch could be rehabilitated - it was about QT casting him knowing about his conviction, in that particular context.

Disappointed that you choose the easy shortcut in your criticism of 'doesn't fit their narrative', which suggests a political agenda that obviates any sense of 'rational criticism' as first cause - criticism as unthinking political rhetoric. That's absolutely not what I was saying, and it's disengagement to suggest otherwise.

Quote

Does it? She has about 20 seconds of screen time and her function is to act as a cipher for whether Pitt murdered her or not. He's cool and quiet, she's drunken and raging and this specifically acts as visual provocation for him raising the gun.

We are not shown that he killed her. The only people who know for definite if he killed her are Pitt and Tarantino. What we are shown is her drunkenly yelling at him and saying she's going to start a fight whether he wants to or not. If that's his motivation for killing her, one 20 second scene, then it's not believable motivation. We are meant to infer this isn't the first time it had happened. Again, if Pitt's character had been the one screaming at his wife while she was seated passively he would be labelled as abusive, not dismissed as a nagging husband. The fact you chose that language was an attempt to downplay her behaviour and add power to your argument that Tarantino isn't a feminist. If you say someone killed their nagging partner then that puts the blame solely on the killer, if you say one of those people was abusive and the other couldn't take it any more - suddenly there's an understandable reason. Your choice of language was entirely disingenuous.


As for this next piece of horseshit

QuoteEr, what? Firstly, the characters in the film didn't carry that out - they're fictionalised versions. You're also leading your analysis through character provocation, which presents character as originating instance. Pitt's character didn't miraculously appear out of nowhere - he was created by Tarantino, who chose for him to carry out those actions, chose the length of shots, chose the level of violence etc. In fact you're making precisely the same mistake as the 'Manson Killers' do in the film - mistaking the movies for reality.

1. This entire film depends on our knowledge of what they did in real life. If it didn't it would be pointless to increase Tate's screen time to humanise her, it could have just been acknowledged through a bit of dialogue that they lived next door to Tate and Polanski. Everything about the Manson family and Tate in this film is based on our knowledge of what happened. It builds tension, it depicts Tate as a sweet loveable young woman so that tension weighs on us through every one of her scenes. The ending subverts that and the violence is so over the top because it's partly a case of Tarantino taking a form of revenge for what happened in real life. If you don't realise that you haven't understood the film at all.

2. The characters in the film may not have carried out that act but they intended to. They were on their way to do it but got diverted by Leo screaming at them in the street. They don't just appear in the house. We see them talking about the murder, we see them change their mind about killing Tate and going after Leo instead, we see them burst into the house armed, we hear Watson say the same things as he did at the Tate murder, we see one of them scream at Tex to shoot Pitt, we see him raise the gun and cock it before the dog attacks him, we see another charge at Pitt screaming with a knife raised. We are given every possible indication that they are going to murder the three occupants of that house. For you to reduce that to "Righteously beating a woman to death for laughs" is once again using language to diminish what actually happens in that scene. There's only two reasons for that, either you're too stupid to understand what was actually happening (which I don't believe) or you're depicting it dishonestly. So again, why is a female character's death more important than a male character's in that scene? Why are you using one violent death as proof of misogyny but not mentioning another character's death in the same scene? Tex Watson has a dog savage his genitals, Pitt beat him up, then Pitt stamp on his head to kill him. But every time someone complains about that end scene they only ever talk about the violence towards women. As if the characters weren't defending themselves in that scene. As if our knowledge of what murderous cunts all three of them were in real life hasn't informed the entire film. Any argument stating that the film is misogynistic because women get killed that doesn't bother to mention who those women are,what they were doing at the time they got killed, or the fact that there was a man killed equally violently is a dishonest one. The flame thrower is pushing the violence into absurd levels but once again it's because it's a form of revenge for real life. Why is that scene set around the pool area? Why have a character run out of the house in the first place? Maybe it's this

QuoteInside the house, Folger had escaped from Krenwinkel and fled out a bedroom door to the pool area.[1]:341–344, 356–361 Folger was pursued to the front lawn by Krenwinkel, who caught her, stabbed her, and finally tackled her to the ground. She was killed by Watson, who stabbed her 28 times.[1]:28–38[2] As Frykowski struggled across the lawn, Watson murdered him with a final flurry of stabbings. Frykowski was stabbed a total of 51 times.[1]:28–38, 258–269[2]

Maybe just maybe it's again talking about real life, where getting out of the house didn't necessarily mean getting to safety, because escaping to the pool area just means you're going to get stabbed 28 times.

QuoteRead the post again, matey. It wasn't about whether Hirsch could be rehabilitated - it was about QT casting him knowing about his conviction, in that particular context.

If it's not about Hirsch being hired at all then it's a worthless thing to bring up. Again, Hirsch has been hired by other directors. Why is it making a point when Tarantino hires him but not when those other people hire him?  One minute you're suggesting the real life activities of the Manson family don't matter to a film but then you're saying Hirsch's do.  What's the difference? What do you think Tarantino is saying? If Hirsch had been cast as Tex Watson, a brutal murderer, you'd have a point, but he isn't. If he'd been cast in Pitt's role then he might have been saying something with the violence, but he wasn't. He's playing a small role of a hairdresser who was murdered in real life. What connection do you think Tarantino made between Hirsch's crime and that role?  Or is it just possible Tarantino cast him simply because he wanted to work with him because he thinks he's a good actor who made a huge mistake and stood trial for that mistake?

QuoteDisappointed that you choose the easy shortcut in your criticism of 'doesn't fit their narrative', which suggests a political agenda that obviates any sense of 'rational criticism' as first cause - criticism as unthinking political rhetoric. That's absolutely not what I was saying, and it's disengagement to suggest otherwise.

Oh I feel so hurt I disappointed you. I mean and there's you, doing nothing but knowingly arguing dishonestly and selectively choosing things to paint someone as a sexist while ignoring everything that didn't fit your narrative.

chveik

what does it mean "a form of revenge for real life"? it seems a bit childish, it's not going to change anything.

popcorn

Quote from: chveik on August 25, 2019, 02:41:24 PM
what does it mean "a form of revenge for real life"? it seems a bit childish, it's not going to change anything.

Well, no stories change anything in that sense, they're just stories. But stories express ideas. The idea here is "it's bad that Tate and her friends were murdered". I think that's hard to disagree with.

The finale is obviously hilarious and played that way, but it's wrong to say it is "merely" played for laughs, as if it being funny diminishes anything. It's funny - and gratifying, and shocking - on a number of levels. The audacity alone is hilarious. Tarantino is saying "this is my movie, and I can do this".

You know there's some sort of reckoning coming at the end of the story and this is what it is. Good triumphs. Fairy tale. I found it not just funny but quite moving and sad too.

Yeah, it's like with Inglorious Basterds killing Hitler early and violently. It doesn't change anything but it gives a fantasy revenge for real life crimes. With OUATIH we're presented with Tate as a symbol for innocence. We know what happened in real life so we're primed to expect unbearable violence and destruction. We suspect Tarantino will change it somehow, but when he does that adds additional tension - Tate's been spared, but will the new targets? We've spent time with these characters and like them, but they could easily die in Tate's place. So when that violence is unleashed, violence that begins realistic but progresses to cartoonish levels with the flame thrower, it serves both as a release of that tension and I think Tarantino saying this is what should have happened. It shouldn't have been those innocent people getting massacred, it should have been these murderers. So I think in that way it's an act of revenge but it's the only revenge a storyteller like Tarantino can take.

Mister Six

I don't think Tate is a symbol at all - I think Tarantino is deliberately showing her as a human in all her mundanity (snoring in bed, unrecognised by cinema staff) to help her shed her posthumous image as a glorified, glamorous victim.

Conversely, her killers are demystified, turning them from malevolent bogeymen if the American imagination and back into what they were: drugged-up, dumb, incompetent sociopaths.

Right but we're not given a negative portrayal of Tate. Everything about her is positive and joyous. I don't mean she's a symbol and nothing more, but I mean everything we're shown of her is sweet and optimistic and happy.  Every other character has a darkness in them and we're not shown that with her. In that sense she can't help but symbolise something good, but that doesn't mean she isn't more than that.

Mister Six

Well she still doesn't have to symbolise anything. But YMMV and all that.

popcorn

I said it before but I think Tate stands for a love of movies generally.

Shit Good Nose

#261
Again I have to caveat this massively by saying I still haven't seen it, but...

QT is known for having a particular fondness for 60s and 70s American films, the kinds of films that dealt with real issues but were still made with a generally rose-tinted view of America (particularly California) at the time and presented a version of America that didn't really exist.  So everyone lived a bohemian life in big houses with pools and they could go out and eat in town every night, ride their motorbikes around in permanent sunset, park up easily for free on a main road in the centre of LA, etc etc etc.  There was no poverty, no streets full of derelict houses and shop units, unemployment didn't affect the unemployed's day-to-day life, working in a strip club was something freeing and it earnt you a lot of money, etc etc etc.  Kind of like how a lot of British films have people living in massive houses or flats in very nice parts of London, but they just work as a lollipop lady or summat, and there's never any traffic, it's always easy to park, everyone's really nice and friendly, etc.

Has QT made a similar film/a tribute to that style of 60s and 70s film-making he so loved, where the harsh realities of the world exist within the film thematically, but are watched through that same rose-tinted lens?


(It's a thought I've just formed purely by the last few posts in this thread, so not dwelled on and not informed by the film itself - I'm just throwing it out there as a brain fart)

popcorn

It's certainly a sparkling portrait of 60s LA. There's a lot of driving.

Peru

Quote from: worldsgreatestsinner on August 25, 2019, 01:51:25 PM
As for this next piece of horseshit

If you don't realise that you haven't understood the film at all.

Oh I feel so hurt I disappointed you. I mean and there's you, doing nothing but knowingly arguing dishonestly and selectively choosing things to paint someone as a sexist while ignoring everything that didn't fit your narrative.

You seem angry. Disproportionatly so, considering we were back-and-forthing about our opinions on a film, and to be honest you've embarrassed yourself a bit with that overreaction. In that novel-length rant you've not actually responded to any of the points I originally made. Instead, you've taken a doggedly literal-minded interpretation of the film ('only Pitt and Tarantino know' etc) rather than a cogent understanding that films operate not only in terms of the data that is on the screen but also the way in which said data speaks in relation to a) the political context of the film's release and b) the director's filmography. The way in which anything generates meaning is context-specific. 'Well he was defending himself' - that's why he smashed her head in on different objects ten times, rather than five, huh? You act as if character/scenario presupposes director, rather than the other way round.

You seem enraged about my 'dishonesty' in reading the film. Allow me to be clear: this was not an attempt to 'frame' Tarantino as a misogynist or sexist. I'm sure Tarantino doesn't hate women. I was talking about whether this film could be construed as feminist or not. I mean, we could talk about the gratuitous shots of the actresses feet, and the scene where Pitt heroically doesn't sleep with an underage girl who is throwing herself at him - in a film in which Roman Polanski is repeatedly invoked - but I fear you might burst a blood vessel.

I actually don't think Tarantino is capable of depicting realistic human beings, so you might argue that both the men and women are similarly ill-served. Here's the thing, though - when I see a man beat up a man on the screen it's unpleasant. When I see a man beat up a woman on the screen it's worse. It's hard-wired. Disproportionate strength, histories of women killed by domestic violence etc etc. It makes me deeply uncomfortable. When it's clearly played for laughs, it's not fun to sit through.

You started this with dishonestly framing the film to suit a political point. You haven't been able to defend a single point when you've been challenged and you've retreated and tried to claim the high ground. You're reading this solely politically and you've tried  to place actions out of context in order to make them more emotive to try and back up your initial claims. I'm not angry at you at all. I can just see through you. With that I don't think it's worth us talking to each other any more, it'll derail the thread and I'm now convinced you're not arguing in good faith.

popcorn

Why are all internet debates now about accusing each other of arguing dishonestly and in bad faith? I'm sure none of my old internet debates were like that.

Peru

#266
Quote from: worldsgreatestsinner on August 25, 2019, 05:43:02 PM
You started this with dishonestly framing the film to suit a political point. You haven't been able to defend a single point when you've been challenged and you've retreated and tried to claim the high ground. You're reading this solely politically and you've tried  to place actions out of context in order to make them more emotive to try and back up your initial claims. I'm not angry at you at all. I can just see through you. With that I don't think it's worth us talking to each other any more, it'll derail the thread and I'm now convinced you're not arguing in good faith.

EDIT: Actually I don't want to be a prick and all that happened was we had a disagreement about an element of a film, so let's just say we disagree and fair do's. Sorry if you were upset. God knows the world's a mess enough without scrapping on here.

Shit Good Nose

Pretty sure it was me (CaB's biggest QT critic and doubter) that mentioned his name and feminism in the same sentence.

To clarify, I never said he was a feminist, I said that of all the A-list Hollywood film makers that started in the early 90s, he's probably the most feminist.  Which is a different thing than being a "Feminist Film Maker".

Foot obsession or not (although Uma Thurman's feet are fascinating - I don't think I've ever seen feet quite like them, on a man or a woman), you can't deny his track record of strong female characters and championing female actors (in fact I think it was QT that I first heard suggest, years ago, that actresses should not be a separate thing and should be called actors as well as their male colleagues).

Appreciate none of that has much to do with OUATIH.

MiddleRabbit

Quote from: Shit Good Nose on August 25, 2019, 06:45:25 PM

Foot obsession or not (although Uma Thurman's feet are fascinating - I don't think I've ever seen feet quite like them, on a man or a woman).

I've got feet quite like hers.  Morton's toe/Greek feet, meaning your second toe is longer than your big toe.  Mine are a lot longer than my 'big' toe.  In fact, my third toes are also longer than my 'big' toe. My missus says she loves me from the top of my head down to my ankles.  Monkey feet, she calls them.  In my younger, more flexible days, I could take a fag out of a packet, put it in my mouth and light it using only my feet.

When barefoot, I realised that I grip the floor as I walk.  My feet are fucking ace.  If only Mrs Middlerabbit was Quentin Tarantino.  Or something.

phantom_power

Quote from: popcorn on August 25, 2019, 05:46:04 PM
Why are all internet debates now about accusing each other of arguing dishonestly and in bad faith? I'm sure none of my old internet debates were like that.

I don't think you really believe this