|
Bongo Bill posted:It's not a big difference, but it is an important one: the goal of bombing the breach is a single mission with a concrete objective. It is, notably, not some kind of "eternal struggle" that characterizes the likes of fascists and Batman. After the battle is won, there are no more jaegers. Surely "as long as we can destroy this one last scapegoat our social order will finally be secure" actually fits the reading. And, like, if it failed, or if a second breach opened up somehow, you think the under-new-management PPDC would not bravely soldier on?
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
For me the best line in the film, and the most important one beside 'where the heck is my shoe?' is 'you can always find me in the drift'. The drift is simultaneously a place of loss and trauma and solipsistic entrapment, and a place where true union can be fostered and lost friends revisited. In the drift, Stacker persists - not as some perverse immortal spirit-creature but as Mako's memories of the person whose principles guide her. To Mako, Stacker is the figure of a complete person - he appears in her memories as a champion haloed by the sun like a religious mural or a stained glass window, and is the owner of her (other?) kid shoe (shoes being a theme in this film). Knowing that he was actually incredibly sick, the question left hanging is whether Mako will chase the impossible idea of a true union with her dead father figure, or accept the ideals he instilled in her and follow them on her own journey, wherever they lead - I think Stacker would have wanted the latter. Nobody wants their children to relive their own lives. Seriously, I rag on this film so god drat much but 'you can always find me in the drift' was a very touching line. One of these is more clear than the other. In one, the light is almost coming from behind the creature, giving it some backlighting. A little is coming from the front, but the source is largely out of frame, keeping the eye focused on the Queen - or at least the light directly behind it, meaning your eye is drawn to it. In the other, the source of light is in the frame, drawing my eye somewhere else. The bluish light, in the bluish underwater scene, illuminates (very slightly, with no background to speak of for it to pop out from) the creature with glowy-blue decals on it. It's not as clear. You can argue that it's not clear for a good reason - the idea being that you can barely make it out, setting up the difficulty of underwater combat - but regardless, it is not as clear as the Alien Queen's shot. At least, in my opinion. You are welcome to correct me. edit: Vulich the Subtle posted:I think I found the shot you were talking about. This is a reveal shot. The light is from behind, and forms a stark contrast between foreground and background sources. The shots are in fact very different! Wow, someone posted the same point I was making as I was writing it, in roughly the same terms! Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:e: Herc Handsome appears to forget that his son just died when they get the news that they blew up the Other Dimension. That always just floors me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Surely "as long as we can destroy this one last scapegoat our social order will finally be secure" actually fits the reading. And, like, if it failed, or if a second breach opened up somehow, you think the under-new-management PPDC would not bravely soldier on? The sequel wouldn't be much of a sequel if they wouldn't do that. You've got a point there, but possibly you didn't think it all the way through: there's only one breach. There's lots of kaiju. Initially, the PPDC's is charged with destroying every kaiju and hoping each one is the last one. It's only when they discover that it'll be necessary to stop the invasions altogether that the world governments pull the plug and build the wall. When the PPDC declares that they will attempt to close the breach to end the conflict - the politicians choose an alternative strategy that will perpetuate it instead!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:The sequel wouldn't be much of a sequel if they wouldn't do that. Right but what you're describing here is a situation in which the true, noble warriors can finally see the solution to the Kaiju problem, it's plain as day, we just need to strike at the very source of the problem with all the strength we can muster, and yet these scheming, cowardly politicians just don't have the stomach to countenance it!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Right but what you're describing here is a situation in which the true, noble warriors can finally see the solution to the Kaiju problem, it's plain as day, we just need to strike at the very source of the problem with all the strength we can muster, and yet these scheming, cowardly politicians just don't have the stomach to countenance it! And so, the brave, true, noble heroes needed to do what must be done, and instigate global revolution, dispensing with the cowards and undesirable bougies in a final solution. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:And so, the brave, true, noble heroes needed to do what must be done, and instigate global revolution, dispensing with the cowards and undesirable bougies in a final solution. It would have been cool to see Cherno whatever stepping on fake Mitt Romney, but that's not the movie we got. It'd feel like kind of a cheat for the robots vs. monsters movie to turn halfway through into a robots vs. oligarchs movie, though. I'd rather see a better-executed version of PR's existing story than a completely different story.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:And so, the brave, true, noble heroes needed to do what must be done, and instigate global revolution, dispensing with the cowards and undesirable bougies in a final solution. I forget: Who in the thread advocated the murder of 'cowards'?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:I forget: Who in the thread advocated the murder of 'cowards'? What kind of revolution doesn't overthrow the government? Not a very effective one I'd imagine. But whoever said murder was a part of the final solution to the bougie problem? e: I was being facetious to start with don't think too hard about it. RBA Starblade fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Right but what you're describing here is a situation in which the true, noble warriors can finally see the solution to the Kaiju problem, it's plain as day, we just need to strike at the very source of the problem with all the strength we can muster, and yet these scheming, cowardly politicians just don't have the stomach to countenance it! Sometimes it's confusing keeping track of all the different readings being thrown around here, so I apologize if this seems like a non sequitur from your perspective. "They didn't really solve the problem because the problem they overcame was caused by another, deeper problem, which still exists" is a weak argument in this case, because the breach represents that deeper problem (pun intended). Rumors about plans for the sequel - I seem to recall the phrase "kaiju-jaeger hybrids" coming up - suggest that if the story continues and another breach opens up, just soldiering on is precisely what the PPDC won't be doing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Sometimes it's confusing keeping track of all the different readings being thrown around here, so I apologize if this seems like a non sequitur from your perspective. "They didn't really solve the problem because the problem they overcame was caused by another, deeper problem, which still exists" is a weak argument in this case, because the breach represents that deeper problem (pun intended). What I'm saying is that the PR protagonists' belief that by destroying a particular scapegoat they could finally secure their society isn't inconsistent at all with the fascism reading. I'm guessing the kaiju-jaeger hybrids are going to be sent by the aliens, since they now have Gypsy Danger's wreckage to look through.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:What I'm saying is that the PR protagonists' belief that by destroying a particular scapegoat they could finally secure their society isn't inconsistent at all with the fascism reading. They are not trying to fix society, they are trying to prevent extinction. The invading aliens are not scapegoats.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Tezcatlipoca posted:They are not trying to fix society, they are trying to prevent extinction. The invading aliens are not scapegoats. An extinct society is pretty broken, but, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Tezcatlipoca posted:They are not trying to fix society, they are trying to prevent extinction. The invading aliens are not scapegoats. Oh, I don't disagree. They're entirely correct in their assessment of the situation - the politicians actually are cowardly backstabbers, and there actually is a single target that, once finally eliminated, will (as far as they can be reasonably expected to know - it's not like Stacker himself is aware he's part of a franchise that's now getting a sequel) solve their chief problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Tezcatlipoca posted:What other choice does he have? He is trying to keep kaiju from exterminating humanity, staging a coup to overthrow the various world governments would only get everyone killed. It is disingenuous to disparage Stacker for ignoring a problem he has zero control over in favor of a problem he has a chance of solving. The thing you are missing is that governments can be deligitimized and even sometimes toppled by passive resistance. I don't think Batman or Stacker are aware, would care if they were, that they are acting as "revolutionaries." Both are ubermenschen. They have their particular obsessions--be it saving the world or punishing the guilty--that they are wholly committed to, and bend others to their will only in service of that goal. The fortunes of plutocrats mean no more to them than the survival of maggots in a rotting corpse. We see that the government in Pacific Rim can't give jobs or feed all its citizens and devalues them totally; we see its grand project quite publicly proved useless. Stacker doesn't need to lead a revolution or even call for one: someone else will see his example and step into the breach; the threat of "one good man" is extremely real to the neoliberal system (in this fiction). I am by the way, not disparaging Stacker. I am disparaging the movie for creating a joyless and cynical world where Stacker is right and good, because that's the only kind of world he's right in. Bongo Bill posted:I think you've got the order of things a bit backwards. Gottlieb (a PPDC member) notices that the frequency and intensity of kaiju attacks are increasing. Because of this, and because a previous attempt to close the breach failed, they defund the PPDC (they do this before the wall is completed). Stacker takes what little budget he has left, sells the salvage rights to kaiju remains to gangsters, and shuts down every base but one, to which he gathers the few remaining working jaegers and their pilots. The plan is to bomb the breach again; he believes that they only have one chance left, and if he fails he's hosed. The plan works only as a result of what Newt (also a PPDC member) learns from drifting with a kaiju. You have a good point, although the Kaiju being such a blatantly mythicized "last enemy" who stand for (variously) natural disasters, the military-industrial complex, the abject feminine and fecund monstrosity of Beowulf and the like somewhat abrogates it. Moreover when the final battle is won, Beckett and Mako emerge from beneath the ocean into the light of a new day, suggestive of possibility and new beginnings. Of course they are now united in mind and in purpose, a union too pure to sully with mere sex. As others have pointed out the Jaegers are gone--they were tools for a war that is over, but what Beckett and Mako shared (from their direct link and the shared influence of Stacker) is still vital. The point is that their return from the underworld equates them to some unknowable future: the new world to be created after the destruction of Ragnorok, for example. e: It can be brought up that the plutocrats still exist, of course. However the movie brings them onstage only long enough to belabor that they are parasitic, weak, and stupid. They have been made obsolete and Stacker, the necessary agent of their defeat (the defeat of their epoch, the epoch of silly Kaiju toys and Jaeger gameshows), has died and left the field to a perfected Mako and his superior/Mako's partner, Beckett. Harime Nui fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
What kind of idea is the idea that society can be saved only by eliminating an external threat once and for all? What kind of society is being saved? Who's doing the saving? Fascist; destructive capitalist; paramilitary forces. Guillermo del Toro knows this. If you think 'in this case society really can be saved only by eliminating an external threat', you have 'fallen for it'. Why did del Toro make this the case in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:I am by the way, not disparaging Stacker. I am disparaging the movie for creating a joyless and cynical world where Stacker is right and good, because that's the only kind of world he's right in. The movie doesn't say that Stacker is right and good. It presents him as a flawed man that is doing his best to prevent the end of humanity. The story takes place years after the start of the war, did you expect everything to be peaches?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Tezcatlipoca posted:The movie doesn't say that Stacker is right and good. It presents him as a flawed man that is doing his best to prevent the end of humanity. The story takes place years after the start of the war, did you expect everything to be peaches? I agree. Stacker is a flawed, but transitional figure. He is good for tearing down (humiliating, showing the powerlessness of) the old order, but after that he can go no further. He (and Batman) are "dinosaurs" in this sense. Remember Stacker gets the Grabovitches(?) and the Chinese dudes killed because he's a warrior, not a tactician. He fails to see what Beckett sees in Mako and it's Beckett who turns her into the ultimate weapon. Remember Pacific Rim is a film only concerned with results, victory and survival at all costs: the best Stacker can do is terminate himself. But like Dark Knight Returns, Pacific Rim ends on a hopeful note of a new day and a new generation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:It would have been cool to see Cherno whatever stepping on fake Mitt Romney, but that's not the movie we got. It'd feel like kind of a cheat for the robots vs. monsters movie to turn halfway through into a robots vs. oligarchs movie, though. I'd rather see a better-executed version of PR's existing story than a completely different story. A transition from the Jaegers being fascist anime mechs to acting like revolutionary/terrorist kaiju (swatting down planes, attacking the rich) would actually work rather well. Simply shift to the real target. For a successful example, see 28 Days Later - where Jim emerges from a mass grave to become a zombie, fighting alongside the very monsters he earlier wished to exterminate. The black zombie chained up and experimented upon makes the meaning there fairly clear. He is the same as the kaiju that get vivisected in this film. Tezcatlipoca posted:They are not trying to fix society, they are trying to prevent extinction. The invading aliens are not scapegoats. Their intentions are not important. The simple fact of the upcoming sequel shows that the plan to prevent extinction was - as I've said all along - doomed to failure. The nuke was, like the kaiju wall, a false solution. It delayed the inevitable in a way that served only to let the PPDC retain a brief moment of power. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Both Batman and Stacker know exactly what they're doing. The PPDC internally refers to itself as 'the resistance,' as I recall. They are resisting not only the Kaiju, but also the people who ordered them to stand down. Batman, of course, is not stupid. He doesn't even begin his revolution until he has visibly and publicly "died." He bets, successfully, that Superman will decide to let him get away with faking his own death. Clark is, of course, the only agent of the government he truly respects (well, besides Gordon). He begins his revolution under the cover of his own death. I'm not sure why the dehumanization of the wall workers is "bad." That was one of the details that I thought was pretty spot-on, in terms of political commentary. The point of that is that the Jaeger program was the more "human" response, and that the alternative was pointless, dehumanizing busywork, with the areas around the Rim becoming a sort of new global South. The workers want to be part of the solution, in this case, but cannot. It could really have gone anywhere from that point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Their intentions are not important. The simple fact of the upcoming sequel shows that the plan to prevent extinction was - as I've said all along - doomed to failure. The PPDC has only as much power as the people give them. Remember that everyone working there is a volunteer. Since the sequel doesn't actually exist yet I won't use it to make any judgments about Pacific Rim and in any case it would be too similar to people who say things like "the sequel ruined the first one for me."
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
The thread is good again, and I mean that to everyone involved. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Tezcatlipoca posted:The PPDC has only as much power as the people give them. Remember that everyone working there is a volunteer. Since the sequel doesn't actually exist yet I won't use it to make any judgments about Pacific Rim and in any case it would be too similar to people who say things like "the sequel ruined the first one for me." The sequel was already implicit the minute Pacific Rim was released incomplete. The failure to address the radical antagonism at the heart of the conflict put a huge question mark on "The End". It's a structural thing. In Captain America's many sequels (essentially the entire Marvel EU), Cap just keeps fighting Hydra - over and over, endlessly. He cannot ever defeat Hydra because he is a capitalist, and Hydra is capitalism. Marvel's constant sequel teasers, franchise tie-ins and whatnot serve to obfuscate the real conflict with an endless parade of spectacle. The characters work extremely hard so that nothing is actually accomplished. Consequently, Marvel can keep raking in the money with the illusion that the story is 'going somewhere.' It's a Red Queen's race: "here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place." Elysium, as a direct contrast, ends with the successful implementation of true universal democracy - and thus cannot be sequelized. There is no post-credits teaser for Elysium 2, and there will not be an Elysium 2. (28 Days Later comes close to Elysium - but the weird ending, with the formation of an ersatz nuclear family and the arrival of an ambiguous fighter jet, naturally leads into the sequel. 28 Weeks Later attacks the ideological assumptions behind its predecessor's happy ending.) Why did Del Toro, famous for his antifascism, make a fascist movie? The explanation is that Pacific Rim was planned out as a multi-film franchise from the beginning. It sets up the antifascist sequel, just as Hellboy 2 completely attacks everything about Hellboy 1. Hodgepodge posted:Both Batman and Stacker know exactly what they're doing. The PPDC internally refers to itself as 'the resistance,' as I recall. They are resisting not only the Kaiju, but also the people who ordered them to stand down. Resistance is surrender. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
Yeah I can see it playing out that way. There are a lot of issues to address following that final battle. The political structure seemed like it was being held together by popsicle sticks and hot glue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
I love the fact that it's completely unfeasible to SMG, at any point, that the fact that Del Toro is making these movies is his love of an idea, a love of the tropes associated with it, and a genuine heartfelt enjoyment from making a film of the stuff he loves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
S-Alpha posted:I love the fact that it's completely unfeasible to SMG, at any point, that the fact that Del Toro is making these movies is his love of an idea, a love of the tropes associated with it, and a genuine heartfelt enjoyment from making a film of the stuff he loves. He's doing a piss poor job then since Pacific Rim is unlike a large number of Kaiju films.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
S-Alpha posted:I love the fact that it's completely unfeasible to SMG, at any point, that the fact that Del Toro is making these movies is his love of an idea, a love of the tropes associated with it, and a genuine heartfelt enjoyment from making a film of the stuff he loves. Del Toro's a smart guy. Don't sell him short.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
quote:A transition from the Jaegers being fascist anime mechs to acting like revolutionary/terrorist kaiju (swatting down planes, attacking the rich) would actually work rather well. Simply shift to the real target. While I was being facetious earlier, I sincerely hope this answered your question Hbomberguy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
Godzilla and Mothra are the good guys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
Actually, why would you expect the revolution instigated by fascists to be socialist in nature and not fascist?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 08:07
|
|
|
I expect them to not be fascists. Also, 'fascist revolution' is an oxymoron.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I expect them to not be fascists. Also, 'fascist revolution' is an oxymoron. Do you expect them to stop being fascists in SMG's Pacific Rim or would they be socialists in the first place? If they are socialists in the first place in SMG's Pacific Rim, why have they waited until the events of SMG's Pacific Rim to instigate global socialist revolution? Were they being lazy? Would they even have Jaegers to instigate global socialist revolution with, fascist machines that they are? What does this global socialist revolution in SMG's Pacific Rim look like? I don't think you ever said beyond "the fascists should join with Baby Jesus to stop being fascists and revolt". To fight monsters, we created monsters. But what are the monsters? RBA Starblade fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 08:10
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Do you expect them to stop being fascists in SMG's Pacific Rim or would they be socialists in the first place? If they are socialists in the first place in SMG's Pacific Rim, why have they waited until the events of SMG's Pacific Rim to instigate global socialist revolution? Were they being lazy? Huh? e: RBA Starblade posted:Do you expect them to stop being fascists in SMG's Pacific Rim or would they be socialists in the first place? If they are socialists in the first place in SMG's Pacific Rim, why have they waited until the events of SMG's Pacific Rim to instigate global socialist revolution? Were they being lazy? Would they even have Jaegers to instigate global socialist revolution with, fascist machines that they are? What does this global socialist revolution in SMG's Pacific Rim look like? I don't think you ever said beyond "the fascists should join with Baby Jesus to stop being fascists and revolt". To fight monsters, we created monsters. But what are the monsters? What?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
Don't be shy or use your little gimmick of failing to understand english when someone presses too hard, tell us how things go in your ideal version of the movie. I'm curious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
I honestly do not understand your weird questions. Could you rephrase them? e: Okay, still trying to decipher your post. There are a couple basic questions that you seem to be asking: A) "In an alternate version of the script where the heroes are socialists at the start of the film, and everything else is the same, why are they lazy?" B) "If the socialist protagonists are lazy because they do not have any robots (because robots are possibly not-socialist), how can a 'socialist revolt' occur in the alternate Pacific Rim Universe?" C) "What are monsters?" I guess the simplest response is that I am not a socialist, and I expect them to die. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 08:59 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:While I was being facetious earlier, I sincerely hope this answered your question Hbomberguy. My question 'who is advocating the murder of 'cowards'?' - I'm afraid it doesn't. SMG is talking about attacking social problems at their source. Oscar loving Wilde posted:To the thinker, the most tragic fact in the whole of the French Revolution is not that Marie Antoinette was killed for being a queen, but that the starved peasant of the Vendee voluntarily went out to die for the hideous cause of feudalism. The kaiju are a dark reflection of certain aspects of humanity. What aspects are their masters a reflection of? Even if we were to completely wipe out the kaiju and their creators, the human flipside of those creatures remains - SMG is talking about aligning with the kaiju and freeing both humanity and the kaiju from the things that enslave them - by any means necessary. It might not be necessary to kill your slave master - but, and this is the point, it is possible to care about the good of humanity - and even inhumanity - and still kill those people if it came down to it. Your basic point - that killing is wrong, and revolutions kill people, so we should all just do the math - is truly saddening. The real tragedy of Pacific Rim is that both kaiju and jaeger killed and went to their deaths for the hideous causes of their masters. On a side-note, back in America's past a lot of people thought blacks didn't need to be free because they were a lesser species that needed guidance, possibly weren't even human. The message of those dark times is that, even if someone is less human than you, or intrinsically different from you, slavery is still a horrifying cause that should be opposed no matter what. In this movie, we kill all the Bad Slaves and (all of?) their Bad Masters, and declare victory over subjugation itself - because no-one's trying to kill us any more, right?? Meanwhile thousands of people have died working on horrifying deathtrap-walls because there's no money otherwise - but it's not slavery, because they could have chosen to starve and die under a bridge! We haven't actually won. The problem persists within ourselves. Saying these things is not the same thing as saying 'I think some people are cowards, and we should kill them for communism.' You don't seem to be able to tell the difference though. Maybe you should get your eyes checked.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
It isn't the characters themselves so much as the narrative that is fascist. Maybe Stacker. Mostly, though, they respond fairly rationally to a universe (narrative) that is telling them that psuedo-fascism is the right approach. The sequel might expand this by showing fascist approaches as ineffective from a larger perspective.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:It isn't the characters themselves so much as the narrative that is fascist. I don't think that's worth separating. I don't think SMG would direct Pacific Rim. What he wants looks like Elysium, as he keeps mentioning. Sometimes having an ideal in mind helps you criticize what's in front of you. If you're a straight up communist and you criticize a government official, it's strange for someone to object, "What, do you expect him to be a communist?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I guess the simplest response is that I am not a socialist, and I expect them to die. I'm asking you what your global revolution would look like if it were to have happened in Pacific Rim instead of Fascism winning the day, and how or why the fascists would even do it. In the Edge of Tomorrow thread you noted that no one else could even comprehend what this would look like. Why don't you help us out? quote:What he wants looks like Elysium, as he keeps mentioning. He wants another failure then? I don't think so. quote:Your basic point - that killing is wrong, and revolutions kill people, so we should all just do the math - is truly saddening. I was not advocating or pushing any position in that post, and especially not this. Are you sure you're responding to the right person? RBA Starblade fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:He wants another failure then? I don't think so. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 16:07
|
|