Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
'Train Station' as a song bothers me because it tries to portray gospel as "free" but it feels false and hollow because of all the Christian money-grubbers I've seen around lately. To me, the intent of a message will always fall short to how the message is conveyed.
It's also weird because it doesn't try to portray other faiths as being invalid, just expensive and requiring a cost. Like you have to be rich to study the Dao or worship Athena or something.
Playing a ALttP randomiser with a couple of friends. To get the magic mirror, we had to: Do the block puzzle in Kakariko to get the Hookshot and Power Glove so that we could climb Death Mountain to get the Cape and Moon Pearl, so that we could fight Aghanim to get the Pegasus Boots from the Dark World's grove, so that we could knock down the lumberjack tree to get the Bow, so that we could beat the Eastern Palace to get the Magic Mirror from Sahasrahla.
Playing a ALttP randomiser with a couple of friends. To get the magic mirror, we had to: Do the block puzzle in Kakariko to get the Hookshot and Power Glove so that we could climb Death Mountain to get the Cape and Moon Pearl, so that we could fight Aghanim to get the Pegasus Boots from the Dark World's grove, so that we could knock down the lumberjack tree to get the Bow, so that we could beat the Eastern Palace to get the Magic Mirror from Sahasrahla.
I don't think I've tried ALttP randomizer. Maybe I should. I've played quite a few Super Metroid randomizers.
I like the part where the dude says "what happened you your faaaacaaceeee" lol and then he rapes a lady except not because sehhhhhh i can't read subtext
iterary critic Benjamin Kirbach argues that Plinkett enacts a kind of détournement by recontextualizing images that would otherwise serve as Star Wars marketing material (such as behind-the-scenes footage and interviews). Defined by Guy Debord as "the reuse of preexisting artistic elements in a new ensemble", détournement is a way of generating meaning out of cultural texts that is antithetical to their original intent.[35] Kirbach argues that Stoklasa uses this tactic to construct a subversive narrative that frames George Lucas as "a lazy, out-of-touch, and thoroughly unchallenged filmmaker".[36]
Kirbach also argues that Plinkett's popularity can be explained, in part, as a form of catharsis. Because he is portrayed as insane, the Plinkett shtick "legitimates our nerd-rage by literalizing it".[37] But aside from raw catharsis, Plinkett's insanity also serves as a critique of the film industry itself. By fictionalizing his critic, Stoklasa constructs a character who is unable to speak at a safe distance from the text he analyzes. "Plinkett becomes the figure of a consumer culture that has been force-fed Hollywood schlock beyond its carrying capacity," Kirbach writes.[38] And furthermore:
Stoklasa's major conceit—that someone would have to be "crazy" to watch movies the way Plinkett does—also implies a barely hidden inverse: that the film industry has induced a consumerist fantasy in people who don't watch movies this way. Plinkett's obscenity and jokiness are without a doubt designed to garner viewership, but they are also Stoklasa's apology for—or defense against—a culture that already construes his level of passion as pathological. This central irony leads us to question what is actually more insane: the consumer who rejects the expressions of a massive culture industry, or the massive culture industry itself. Plinkett satirizes the kind of consumer such a system generates: psychotic, sexist, homicidal.[37]
However, the reviews have also been criticized by some Star Wars prequel fans. Stoklasa stated that he feels "Star Wars to some people is like a religion so they respond to attacks on it as such."[9] One prequel trilogy fan wrote a 108-page point-by-point rebuttal of the Phantom Menace review,[39] which Stoklasa mocked in an announcement video for his Revenge of the Sith review.[40]
Comments
Kill them all!
Not that I would get lost, but I wouldn't really go anyway in particular and just end up not walking much.
Some things, anyway.
*realises that I don't have a toilet brush*
Bollocks.
Don't judge me.
Well, it doesn't say that it contain bleach...
Me:
me:
iterary critic Benjamin Kirbach argues that Plinkett enacts a kind of détournement by recontextualizing images that would otherwise serve as Star Wars marketing material (such as behind-the-scenes footage and interviews). Defined by Guy Debord as "the reuse of preexisting artistic elements in a new ensemble", détournement is a way of generating meaning out of cultural texts that is antithetical to their original intent.[35] Kirbach argues that Stoklasa uses this tactic to construct a subversive narrative that frames George Lucas as "a lazy, out-of-touch, and thoroughly unchallenged filmmaker".[36]
Kirbach also argues that Plinkett's popularity can be explained, in part, as a form of catharsis. Because he is portrayed as insane, the Plinkett shtick "legitimates our nerd-rage by literalizing it".[37] But aside from raw catharsis, Plinkett's insanity also serves as a critique of the film industry itself. By fictionalizing his critic, Stoklasa constructs a character who is unable to speak at a safe distance from the text he analyzes. "Plinkett becomes the figure of a consumer culture that has been force-fed Hollywood schlock beyond its carrying capacity," Kirbach writes.[38] And furthermore:
However, the reviews have also been criticized by some Star Wars prequel fans. Stoklasa stated that he feels "Star Wars to some people is like a religion so they respond to attacks on it as such."[9] One prequel trilogy fan wrote a 108-page point-by-point rebuttal of the Phantom Menace review,[39] which Stoklasa mocked in an announcement video for his Revenge of the Sith review.[40]