>>973391 Honestly if anything Zootopia told me that racism is a valid form of self-preservation

>>973749 You could at least give your own opinion instead of outsourcing it to a jewtuber. That more proves his point if anything, just replace "superhero" with "video essayist" and that's basically what you're doing.

>>973863 >You could at least give your own opinion instead of outsourcing it to a jewtuber. Why? If someone is better capable at articulating an issue with something than I can, why shouldn't I reference them?

>>973864 Because you are proving that the villain of Incredibles 2 was right.

>>973741 >>973866 That's stupid, it's like saying people rely on the police instead of everyone beating criminals to death the minute a crime happens. Or saying you rely on pilots instead of trying to fly the plane yourself. Then again the villain is a woman so retardation is to be expected.

>>973864 If it was just a matter of articulation, reference, or supplementing your own opinion that'd be one thing, but all you did was let someone else's opinion completely substitute in for your own. You have made your own opinion (and by extension, your own agency) completely meaningless when that's all you end up doing. You are yourself anon, nobody can live your life out for you. Just because you think someone can do some things better than you doesn't mean you should let your own opinions be completely subsumed by them. Your opinions are based on your thoughts and feelings. It's okay to agree with someone, but you shouldn't be so casual about it. >>973869 You're comparing a crime, which has objective criteria in the law for whether it is violated or not, with an opinion on media, something much, much more subjective. There are also many, many complex factors to the scenarios you are describing. It's not remotely the same kind of thing. That discussion goes way beyond the scope of merely giving your own opinion on something far more subjective like a piece of media. Same thing for operating aircraft, which is more or less objective and based on fields involving complex mathematics and sciences along with rigorous training and cerifications for actually piloting them. (However there is also nothing stopping you from learning piloting assuming you have money, time and desire to do so). There are clearly wrong ways to operate an aircraft. The same isn't really true for opinions

>>973873 Shouldn't be so casual about offloading/relying on someone else to do all your thinking for you*

>>973869 There is a difference between operating a complex machinery like a plane where any mistake could kill dozens of people, and not thinking for yourself, so you outsource that to video essayists. I am not saying that hearing the opinion of video essayists is wrong (I watch some of those myself), but anon could have given a few examples of why the movie is bad and then add, "if you want even more examples watch this jewtuber that lists all of them". In that case, at least he proved that he was able to absorb some information, and hopefully able to argue for it, instead of simply pasting a link like an NPC.

>>973749 >no wrong I say so Thanks for admitting the villain was correct. Fuck off. You have nothing to add. >>973869 >that's stupid Any evidence? > it's like saying people rely on the police instead of everyone beating criminals to death the minute a crime happens Do you even know what police are. >Or saying you rely on pilots instead of trying to fly the plane yourself. No, you really don't have any idea what society even is.

>>973873 >Just because you think someone can do some things better than you doesn't mean you should let your own opinions be completely subsumed by them. Why? Do you think that because I refer to someone else to make my argument for me, that I am then incapable of stepping in the moment said person does make an argument that I disagree with? >>973876 >but anon could have given a few examples of why the movie is bad and then add, "if you want even more examples watch this jewtuber that lists all of them" But then you would still make the same argument, that my points are so "flimsy and weak" that I "need" to refer to an e-celeb instead of writing out my opinions on my own.

>>973940 >But then you would still make the same argument, that my points are so "flimsy and weak" that I "need" to refer to an e-celeb instead of writing out my opinions on my own. First of all, you don't know that, second of all you are wrong to assume that and thirdly, if I felt necessary I would have simply talked about the points you made, and not the ones from the video. I assume you would have been able to defend said points, and you could have made reference to that video with timestamps if you needed examples from the movie that happened to be presented in the video. >Why? Do you think that because I refer to someone else to make my argument for me, that I am then incapable of stepping in the moment said person does make an argument that I disagree with? How about you prove everyone wrong by providing two examples for why the movie has issues? They can be the same from the video, but in your own words. If you can manage that, then you win the argument.

>>973945 >First of all, you don't know that Yes I do because that's the EXACT direction I've had several arguments go down. >second of all you are wrong to assume that Why? >thirdly, if I felt necessary I would have simply talked about the points you made, and not the ones from the video Except the problems I had are listed by the e-celeb in the video. >and you could have made reference to that video with timestamps if you needed examples from the movie that happened to be presented in the video And if it's the entire video? >How about you prove everyone wrong by providing two examples for why the movie has issues? The villains ENTIRE motivation is based upon her hating the very concept of heroes because it takes away people's "agency" to act. Quite literally, exactly the point this Anon was making: >>973869 Oh, wait, I cannot refer to anyone else making my points for me, now can I? Well, there goes talking about the overwhelming majority of the films entire fucking plot!

>>973940 >Do you think that because I refer to someone else to make my argument for me, that I am then incapable of stepping in the moment said person does make an argument that I disagree with? Not that anon, but yes. Faggots like you are parasites that contribute nothing to discussion and lessen the total pool of genuine people on the planet. There's not even a processing of ideas to form it to your own, instead it's blind adherence to a third party no one in their right mind would dedicate an hour and a half for a second hand experience at best. Discussion with an actual person could have been had, but instead everyone in your life has to deal a shit eater that can't even make his own argument.

>>973954 You responded anyways. You knowingly gave him what he wants.

>>973954 >>974012 He's a schizo anyway so any response is just another voice in his head yelling at him. Don't even respond.

>>973949 Like those faggots creeping on youngsters in Persona 5, how well did the flaggot mafia take that?

>>965769 >A remaster >Thinking that won't be filled with made up shit That's the true monkey paw

>>973718 I didn't realize Maui was an "actual" mythological character and just assumed he was an original character themed Polynesian demigod, and thus just a "never meet your heroes" type thing. That makes me think even worse of the movie.

>>973741 >objectively correct <*political diatribe aimed at the movie audience* How would you be feeling if you didn't have lunch today?

>>987321 <non-reply over a month later <completely and utterly misses the point of the comment <personally and emotionally offended at the very idea of the EXISTENCE of objectivity <tries the NPC test on someone who has already passed it because he's too fucking retarded himself to understand it It's like poetry.

>>987326 >it's a month old <jumps in 10 minutes later >personally and emotionally offended <is clearly offended writing his post >tries the NPC test on someone who has already passed it Then why can't you process moral judgements in a hypothetical scenario?

>>987374 How does him replying to a post that was recently made mean anything? And your final line just has nothing to do with anything.

>>987374 You got ass-ravaged by the mere idea that someone rejects the consumerism and materialism that underpin your very sense of self. Thus, you lashed out with a reference to something you don't understand (but which you at least recognized, perhaps accidentally, is tangentially related to the overarching theme of the topic). You did this to defend your "moral choices" in a roundabout way because you can't defend them on their own merits. You didn't consciously or actively make those choices--you simply did what you were told your whole life without even questioning it. The idea of this kind of introspection terrifies you. Despite believing that objective truth doesn't exist--and therefore objectively moral decisions cannot exist--you still have a niggle of worry that introspection might possibly show that your decisions were intrinsically incorrect. And that hurts your feelings. Since truth doesn't exist, the only purpose of living is "make good fee fees." If fee fees hurt, life no purpose. Again, existential terror, for you. By externalizing this terror, you lash out like a cornered dog and absolve yourself of the responsibility (a function of objectivity, which doesn't exist!) of agency over your life's own decisions, and then you don't have to even think about the possibility of ever being wrong! So no, the film's "villain" was objectively correct (in this one, specific way) and nothing your feelings tell you to say or do will ever change that. In short, project your own failings onto someone else, please. It's not working.

>>987384 Come home white man. It's time to start your anki reps.

>>987384 Can you post some examples?

>>987602 The only example I've seen mentioned is the Ciel noSurge fan translation that hasn't been released, that's about it.

>>966015 The sheer butthurt they must feel over people not having this shit.

>>997897 Funny enough, the AI re-translation is actually coming along rather smoothly.

>>1010905 Ruins official translation even more tbh.

>>1010905 Why even fucking do this?

>>987596 > It's time to start your anki reps. anki is shit just boot up a game with furigana and keep a dictionary in your lap cut up post it notes into stripes and write the kanji for the section's of the book on the ends it speeds up searching a lot

>>966015 The solution is not to complain about the localization, it's to blame the devs. Give it a 3/10 for using dated language and political slurs and saying the writers have fallen off.

>>1029562 or buy these things you get the idea

>>953154 No? Thats definitely purple prose. This isn't Halt Stout Yeoman, this is self masturbation

>>1029562 I would like to add that Japanese grammar tends to be heavily underestimated and therefore skipped, despite that's a grave mistake. A self-proclaimed "professional translator", whom I had an argument with a while back, struggled to understand the double を particle in the same sentence on pic related. And in spite that nominalizer particles are essentially intermediate-level grammar rules.