Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2)

[jye4ever]

If he was referring to the group that re-outted Gunn then he’s not wrong, not at all.

That dude goes well beyond trolls.

 

[Darth Snoopy]

Snoopy just deleted 20,000 posts that have the letters TLJ used in that order lol

It was 40,000. Get the number right next time!

Snoop gets post of the day!

 

[Vault Boy]

Feminist daily, The Mary Sue comes to KK's defense. Here we go.

No, Lucasfilm’s Kathleen Kennedy Does Not Need to Retire

There’s a common cry among those who hate Disney’s take on the Star Wars franchise: Lucasfilm President Kathleen Kennedy must retire.

Never mind that she’s one of the most powerful women in Hollywood, or that she’s helped produce countless beloved films. No, she is clearly the root of all evil and must step down to let the nearest available white man take the job, since they will lead Star Wars back to the good ol’ days where everyone except for the token woman is a white, cishet, straight man.

Lucasfilm has some problems. It would be foolish to say they’re perfect, and I personally have some issues that will be outlined in this article. But there is nothing so drastic as to merit a complete overhaul of leadership and handing the reins over to a far less experienced white guy. Just because Luke Skywalker didn’t pull a Star Destroyer out of the sky using the Force doesn’t mean the most powerful woman in Hollywood should retire. That would be a huge mistake.

Kennedy is heading up one of the most powerful studios on Earth, and fanboys want her gone and replaced with a man. This is either subtle or extreme sexism, depending on the person who’s doing the talking.

https://www.themarysue.com/lucasfilm-kathleen-kennedy-criticism/

Have a laugh.



Here's the proof that KK doesn't give a **** about SW.

https://www.reddit.com/r/saltierthancrait/comments/8zm8jw/regarding_the_lucasfilm_story_group/

Credit to Doomcock.

 

[YoNoSe]

Thanks so much, Doomcock.

 

[greedo737]

Love that thread!

 

[pixletwin]

Thanks so much, Doomcock.

I’ve never heard that expression before.

 

[YoNoSe]

I’ve never heard that expression before.

I never thought I'd say it.

 

[Darth Snoopy]

So; After how many years of living in mommy's basement does one name themselves "Doomcock"?

 

[YoNoSe]

So; After how many years of living in mommy's basement does one name themselves "Doomcock"?

Probably fewer years than when you start quoting Doomcock.

 

[Darth Snoopy]

Probably fewer years than when you start quoting Doomcock.

Good to know.

 

[YoNoSe]

Good to know.

I think you mean Credit to Junkion.

 

[Darth Snoopy]

I think you mean Credit to Junkion.

 

[YoNoSe]

 

[Khev]

So; After how many years of living in mommy's basement does one name themselves "Doomcock"?

I guess "Scrotum Hat" was already taken.

 

[Darth Snoopy]

I guess "Scrotum Hat" was already taken.

 

[rushmore223]

Ha ha! Article says that so many of the "haters" aren't even human.

https://www.indiewire.com/2018/10/s...study-russian-trolls-rian-johnson-1202008645/

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[Caped Baldy]

The hell gates have reopened.

 

[xipotec]

We are seeing the same with Venom already....

Interesting but whats in it for them?


Sent from the inside of a giant slug in outer space.....

 

[Popnfresh98]

Ha ha! Article says that so many of the "haters" aren't even human.

https://www.indiewire.com/2018/10/s...study-russian-trolls-rian-johnson-1202008645/

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

This is a classic case of why no one should read a headline or article and gloat about it without going to the source itself.

If you were to read the actual ‘study,’ specifically the methodology he used to get the results he did, you’d find the whole thing is based on subjective opinion. There were only about 10 accounts he could truly identify as bots out of thousands, using something called a botometer. Then he tried finding similarities to the way those accounts spoke, and labelled them as having a high probability being of bots as well, but counting them in the bot total anyway.

Any account that had less activity and sparked up around that time, he automatically deemed sock puppets. Of course, then he says a high amount of these bots/sock puppets must be russian, purely based on that ‘it is known’ that Russians do such things, citing the 2016 election.

After that he goes onto the regular accounts, and puts any with a certain short talking style(as most twitter users are), certain putdowns about the movie(not even always racist or sexist), or using certain keywords or hashtags as alt right trolls, just because what else could they be? Then he lumps all of them into one category to increase the numbers. So many twitter users (as the article is specifically about twitter) are highly stupid, whichever side that they’re on, and have a highly developed pack mentality, so of course this is the result he’s going to get.

There is nothing scientific in this ‘paper,’ even the bots deemed russian have no IP traces behind them, no reason for them to be russian, zilch. If it was scientific I’d be forced to agree, but it’s a farce masquerading as academia.

It’s just a continuation of the mentality behind the 2016 russian election interference thing, with just as much evidence backing it up: as in zero.

 

[rushmore223]

This is a classic case of why no one should read a headline or article and gloat about it without going to the source itself.

If you were to read the actual ‘study,’ specifically the methodology he used to get the results he did, you’d find the whole thing is based on subjective opinion. There were only about 10 accounts he could truly identify as bots out of thousands, using something called a botometer. Then he tried finding similarities to the way those accounts spoke, and labelled them as having a high probability being of bots as well, but counting them in the bot total anyway.

Any account that had less activity and sparked up around that time, he automatically deemed sock puppets. Of course, then he says a high amount of these bots/sock puppets must be russian, purely based on that ‘it is known’ that Russians do such things, citing the 2016 election.

After that he goes onto the regular accounts, and puts any with a certain short talking style(as most twitter users are), certain putdowns about the movie(not even always racist or sexist), or using certain keywords or hashtags as alt right trolls, just because what else could they be? Then he lumps all of them into one category to increase the numbers. So many twitter users (as the article is specifically about twitter) are highly stupid, whichever side that they’re on, and have a highly developed pack mentality, so of course this is the result he’s going to get.

There is nothing scientific in this ‘paper,’ even the bots deemed russian have no IP traces behind them, no reason for them to be russian, zilch. If it was scientific I’d be forced to agree, but it’s a farce masquerading as academia.

It’s just a continuation of the mentality behind the 2016 russian election interference thing, with just as much evidence backing it up: as in zero.

Holy ****, Welcome to joke overexplanation...

I'm not going to get into the election, though I'd like to.

Legitimate or not, it was mostly meant in a humorous way. Hence my pointing out the one line where he says he believes the accounts are bots (not human).

It was just my way of saying, as a joke, that the people that hate the movie are inhuman.





Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk