I believe someone is bringing a lawsuit to argue that Trump can't block anyone on Twitter, since he is using his account in official capacity.

Its weird, because the inconsistencies are so basic and so easily remedied, they're either some glaring errors or they're intentionally confusing. Either look is not a good one on a film.

I think you guys just said the same thing.

Well, I always said when Trump did something right, I'd say so.

Totally. It's not that amateurs can't have quality insights, sometimes above and beyond those of the professionals. It's more that professional critics should be held to higher standards than the average commenter. Whether that's self-imposed by the community, or as Scrawler referenced, a return in some fashion to…

A movie a day is a lot if you have a family and another job, and you want to pursue hobbies, but that's why I phrased it as a period of study, akin to college. It takes less time to watch a movie and write a response to it that it does to attend one college level course. That's hardly a big barrier.

"If you think just letting people hear Jones talk for 10 minutes is going
to have large numbers buy into his BS then you might as well concede
we're already fucked if you think people are that stupid."

That rush is the scary thing— its easy to see how addictive it would be to keep doing that, and how fast it would desensitize someone to the damage they were doing.

Excellent points all.

I don't think you need much time to get a fairly decent film history background. A couple years of dedicated study is all it takes to get a fairly good background. A movie a day for two years is over 700 films. That's more than enough, and a couple years is hardly a big commitment for soemthing that is supposed to be…

It's not that it's off base, but that it shouldn't be the fundamental basis of the critique.

Nail meet head. DC's issue is that they have no idea (or keep hiring people like Snyder and Goyer who have no idea) what the underlying appeal to most of their characters are, so they keep trying to make all of them into Batman. It sounds like WW is the first film to avoid that trap.

I think most of those critics would say they understand it's an impossible gosl to achieve, but still strive anyways, as opposed to Katie's approach, which seems to be "fuck it, just make it all about you"

This ties into arguments often seen about historical figures- you can't look something from the past with a modern lens if you intend to judge a persons morality. Its that kind of thinking that leads people to go around saying that Abraham Lincoln was a racist. Well, sure, if you dropped him into 2017 unchanged,…

The objectivity is useful in trying to understand how and why art affects people. Look at the most successful artisitic pieces and see what they all have in common. That can be done at a bit of arms length. Critics should be at least somewhat versed in that skill, whether through education or experience.

Liberalism, at least as I understand it, is about getting everyone to be living together in harmony. Finding common ground across culture.

The problem is with the absolutist nature of the idea. As Katie puts it, she's making the claim that objectivity has always been a white male construct, as if the same thinking can't be applied by people of any identity, and that's just crazy.

How about because two people can look at the same thing, apply their own different life experiences to the work, and come away with two vastly different, but both perfectly valid, opinions.

I'll grant that white males were the only critics for a long time, but I think that assuming that "objectivity" is just another way of exercising their privilege is, in itself, steeped pretty heavily in the new subjective/political manner of criticism.

Precisely. You can't confront or correct views by ignoring them.