Upload
Login or register

thepenname

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 24
Date Signed Up:2/09/2011
Last Login:6/19/2016
Stats
Content Thumbs: 6900 total,  8464 ,  1564
Comment Thumbs: 6250 total,  8918 ,  2668
Content Level Progress: 4% (4/100)
Level 169 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 170 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Comment Level Progress: 89% (89/100)
Level 260 Comments: Pure Win → Level 261 Comments: Pure Win
Subscribers:3
Content Views:238934
Times Content Favorited:332 times
Total Comments Made:2677
FJ Points:12906
Favorite Tags: You (2)
I'm just your average joe, though I can walk on water and breathe fire. Learn to love me.

latest user's comments

#102 - "I just don't enjoy taking an in-depth look into somethin…  [+] (1 reply) 01/24/2014 on A Whole Two Days 0
User avatar
#106 - slandersalamander (01/24/2014) [-]
Well I appreciate your lack of vitriol here. I agree with what you're saying. It's more important to be open to and capable of discussion when a counterargument is presented, and I'll admit I wasn't really doing that in this conversation.
#95 - Considering how you couldn't satisfy any of my questions or pr…  [+] (3 replies) 01/24/2014 on A Whole Two Days 0
User avatar
#98 - slandersalamander (01/24/2014) [-]
I won't deny it being arrogant. If you read my last comment again, you'll see that I said that "I don't see it as having any qualities that are worthy of thorough analysis", which is clearly a preferential statement. I just don't enjoy taking an in-depth look into something I didn't enjoy, which is why I don't see it as worth analyzing.

I'm not going to bother defending myself against implications that I can't review or analyze, since it doesn't matter to me what you think. I'd put the minimum effort in and link you to my archive, but it leads directly back to my personal Facebook account, so that's out of the question.
#102 - thepenname (01/24/2014) [-]
"I just don't enjoy taking an in-depth look into something I didn't enjoy, which is why I don't see it as worth analyzing" is a better preferential statement than "I don't see it as having any qualities that are worthy of thorough analysis." The latter's borderline judgmental, since "I don't see it as" could be interpreted as either your judgmental take or your preferential take. The former I'm completely fine with. I probably wouldn't enjoy spending a ton of time analyzing a film I didn't enjoy that much or even enjoy disliking.

In any case, my main point you should take away from all this is that, like I said earlier, it's better to be deferential, hopefully open-minded or inquisitive, than sharing a surface-level opinion that will no doubt lead to contentions, as we see all up in this thread. Why? 'Cause you can learn more that way.
User avatar
#106 - slandersalamander (01/24/2014) [-]
Well I appreciate your lack of vitriol here. I agree with what you're saying. It's more important to be open to and capable of discussion when a counterargument is presented, and I'll admit I wasn't really doing that in this conversation.
#90 - Yes, you're stating an opinion, but a judgmental one. Though r…  [+] (5 replies) 01/24/2014 on A Whole Two Days 0
User avatar
#93 - slandersalamander (01/24/2014) [-]
There's a difference between being ignorant and being indifferent. I am utterly indifferent to utilizing critical theory in my assessment of Frozen because I don't see it as having any qualities that are worthy of thorough analysis. As such, I don't really feel required to justify my opinions.
#95 - thepenname (01/24/2014) [-]
Considering how you couldn't satisfy any of my questions or promptings, I'm going to guess you're ignorant of relevant critical theory. That's not even an insult. Ignorance is a fact of being. Can't know everything. It's debatable whether you can know anything at all, but for my purposes, let's specify that you can't be well-versed in every field. If you were adept at film criticism, I doubt you'd be so quick to dismiss Frozen as having no "qualities that are worthy of thorough analysis." Professional critics have analyzed worse films. There's value to the exercise of criticism, even with a mediocre subject. If you don't want to spend the time going to that depth, admit such or say nothing. Or just be sure to phrase everything as a preferential opinion. That way you won't have the long thread of contentions we have here. Opting out of an in-depth analysis on the basis that the subject isn't worth such effort looks arrogant.
User avatar
#98 - slandersalamander (01/24/2014) [-]
I won't deny it being arrogant. If you read my last comment again, you'll see that I said that "I don't see it as having any qualities that are worthy of thorough analysis", which is clearly a preferential statement. I just don't enjoy taking an in-depth look into something I didn't enjoy, which is why I don't see it as worth analyzing.

I'm not going to bother defending myself against implications that I can't review or analyze, since it doesn't matter to me what you think. I'd put the minimum effort in and link you to my archive, but it leads directly back to my personal Facebook account, so that's out of the question.
#102 - thepenname (01/24/2014) [-]
"I just don't enjoy taking an in-depth look into something I didn't enjoy, which is why I don't see it as worth analyzing" is a better preferential statement than "I don't see it as having any qualities that are worthy of thorough analysis." The latter's borderline judgmental, since "I don't see it as" could be interpreted as either your judgmental take or your preferential take. The former I'm completely fine with. I probably wouldn't enjoy spending a ton of time analyzing a film I didn't enjoy that much or even enjoy disliking.

In any case, my main point you should take away from all this is that, like I said earlier, it's better to be deferential, hopefully open-minded or inquisitive, than sharing a surface-level opinion that will no doubt lead to contentions, as we see all up in this thread. Why? 'Cause you can learn more that way.
User avatar
#106 - slandersalamander (01/24/2014) [-]
Well I appreciate your lack of vitriol here. I agree with what you're saying. It's more important to be open to and capable of discussion when a counterargument is presented, and I'll admit I wasn't really doing that in this conversation.
#83 - Which character archetypes? What constitutes "tired"…  [+] (7 replies) 01/24/2014 on A Whole Two Days +1
User avatar
#84 - slandersalamander (01/24/2014) [-]
Jesus christ I'm just trying to state my opinion, not write a fucking critical review

I have a website for that
#90 - thepenname (01/24/2014) [-]
Yes, you're stating an opinion, but a judgmental one. Though reductive, there are two types of opinions: preferential ones and judgmental ones. Preferential opinions are based off your pure, subject tastes. "I prefer Pepsi over Coke," for instance. It can't be debated. Judgmental opinions compare the subject as if by criteria, such as, "Pepsi is bad." These opinions are especially weak when one fails to establish their criteria. Too often people assume self-ascribed qualities like "bland" are self-evident, when those qualities could be determined using established theories and conventions of relevant crafts. If you don't know the criteria or relevant theories/conventions, refrain from stating judgmental opinions and opt instead for preferential ones. "It felt bland to me" or "these archetypes have worn on me." It's better to be deferential, acknowledging your ignorance of pertinent critical theory, rather than putting your foot in your mouth.
User avatar
#93 - slandersalamander (01/24/2014) [-]
There's a difference between being ignorant and being indifferent. I am utterly indifferent to utilizing critical theory in my assessment of Frozen because I don't see it as having any qualities that are worthy of thorough analysis. As such, I don't really feel required to justify my opinions.
#95 - thepenname (01/24/2014) [-]
Considering how you couldn't satisfy any of my questions or promptings, I'm going to guess you're ignorant of relevant critical theory. That's not even an insult. Ignorance is a fact of being. Can't know everything. It's debatable whether you can know anything at all, but for my purposes, let's specify that you can't be well-versed in every field. If you were adept at film criticism, I doubt you'd be so quick to dismiss Frozen as having no "qualities that are worthy of thorough analysis." Professional critics have analyzed worse films. There's value to the exercise of criticism, even with a mediocre subject. If you don't want to spend the time going to that depth, admit such or say nothing. Or just be sure to phrase everything as a preferential opinion. That way you won't have the long thread of contentions we have here. Opting out of an in-depth analysis on the basis that the subject isn't worth such effort looks arrogant.
User avatar
#98 - slandersalamander (01/24/2014) [-]
I won't deny it being arrogant. If you read my last comment again, you'll see that I said that "I don't see it as having any qualities that are worthy of thorough analysis", which is clearly a preferential statement. I just don't enjoy taking an in-depth look into something I didn't enjoy, which is why I don't see it as worth analyzing.

I'm not going to bother defending myself against implications that I can't review or analyze, since it doesn't matter to me what you think. I'd put the minimum effort in and link you to my archive, but it leads directly back to my personal Facebook account, so that's out of the question.
#102 - thepenname (01/24/2014) [-]
"I just don't enjoy taking an in-depth look into something I didn't enjoy, which is why I don't see it as worth analyzing" is a better preferential statement than "I don't see it as having any qualities that are worthy of thorough analysis." The latter's borderline judgmental, since "I don't see it as" could be interpreted as either your judgmental take or your preferential take. The former I'm completely fine with. I probably wouldn't enjoy spending a ton of time analyzing a film I didn't enjoy that much or even enjoy disliking.

In any case, my main point you should take away from all this is that, like I said earlier, it's better to be deferential, hopefully open-minded or inquisitive, than sharing a surface-level opinion that will no doubt lead to contentions, as we see all up in this thread. Why? 'Cause you can learn more that way.
User avatar
#106 - slandersalamander (01/24/2014) [-]
Well I appreciate your lack of vitriol here. I agree with what you're saying. It's more important to be open to and capable of discussion when a counterargument is presented, and I'll admit I wasn't really doing that in this conversation.
#73 - Those are still superficial criticisms. How was it generic? In…  [+] (9 replies) 01/24/2014 on A Whole Two Days 0
User avatar
#76 - slandersalamander (01/24/2014) [-]
It's generic because they still used tired character archetypes and scenes the sort of which you've seen before, even in the context of a superficially unique story. The main reason I believe the film is pandering is that they felt they had to spend minutes explaining what they did at the end. How many times did we really need to hear that sisterly love was as strong as romantic love?
#83 - thepenname (01/24/2014) [-]
Which character archetypes? What constitutes "tired"? Specify the scenes and explain what particular aspects of them (dialogue, plotting, themes, etc.) we've "seen before." Is heavy-handed exposition necessarily pandering? That sounds more like a signal of pandering, not actually a device for pandering.
User avatar
#84 - slandersalamander (01/24/2014) [-]
Jesus christ I'm just trying to state my opinion, not write a fucking critical review

I have a website for that
#90 - thepenname (01/24/2014) [-]
Yes, you're stating an opinion, but a judgmental one. Though reductive, there are two types of opinions: preferential ones and judgmental ones. Preferential opinions are based off your pure, subject tastes. "I prefer Pepsi over Coke," for instance. It can't be debated. Judgmental opinions compare the subject as if by criteria, such as, "Pepsi is bad." These opinions are especially weak when one fails to establish their criteria. Too often people assume self-ascribed qualities like "bland" are self-evident, when those qualities could be determined using established theories and conventions of relevant crafts. If you don't know the criteria or relevant theories/conventions, refrain from stating judgmental opinions and opt instead for preferential ones. "It felt bland to me" or "these archetypes have worn on me." It's better to be deferential, acknowledging your ignorance of pertinent critical theory, rather than putting your foot in your mouth.
User avatar
#93 - slandersalamander (01/24/2014) [-]
There's a difference between being ignorant and being indifferent. I am utterly indifferent to utilizing critical theory in my assessment of Frozen because I don't see it as having any qualities that are worthy of thorough analysis. As such, I don't really feel required to justify my opinions.
#95 - thepenname (01/24/2014) [-]
Considering how you couldn't satisfy any of my questions or promptings, I'm going to guess you're ignorant of relevant critical theory. That's not even an insult. Ignorance is a fact of being. Can't know everything. It's debatable whether you can know anything at all, but for my purposes, let's specify that you can't be well-versed in every field. If you were adept at film criticism, I doubt you'd be so quick to dismiss Frozen as having no "qualities that are worthy of thorough analysis." Professional critics have analyzed worse films. There's value to the exercise of criticism, even with a mediocre subject. If you don't want to spend the time going to that depth, admit such or say nothing. Or just be sure to phrase everything as a preferential opinion. That way you won't have the long thread of contentions we have here. Opting out of an in-depth analysis on the basis that the subject isn't worth such effort looks arrogant.
User avatar
#98 - slandersalamander (01/24/2014) [-]
I won't deny it being arrogant. If you read my last comment again, you'll see that I said that "I don't see it as having any qualities that are worthy of thorough analysis", which is clearly a preferential statement. I just don't enjoy taking an in-depth look into something I didn't enjoy, which is why I don't see it as worth analyzing.

I'm not going to bother defending myself against implications that I can't review or analyze, since it doesn't matter to me what you think. I'd put the minimum effort in and link you to my archive, but it leads directly back to my personal Facebook account, so that's out of the question.
#102 - thepenname (01/24/2014) [-]
"I just don't enjoy taking an in-depth look into something I didn't enjoy, which is why I don't see it as worth analyzing" is a better preferential statement than "I don't see it as having any qualities that are worthy of thorough analysis." The latter's borderline judgmental, since "I don't see it as" could be interpreted as either your judgmental take or your preferential take. The former I'm completely fine with. I probably wouldn't enjoy spending a ton of time analyzing a film I didn't enjoy that much or even enjoy disliking.

In any case, my main point you should take away from all this is that, like I said earlier, it's better to be deferential, hopefully open-minded or inquisitive, than sharing a surface-level opinion that will no doubt lead to contentions, as we see all up in this thread. Why? 'Cause you can learn more that way.
User avatar
#106 - slandersalamander (01/24/2014) [-]
Well I appreciate your lack of vitriol here. I agree with what you're saying. It's more important to be open to and capable of discussion when a counterargument is presented, and I'll admit I wasn't really doing that in this conversation.
#61 - "Bland" let alone "bad" aren't developed c…  [+] (12 replies) 01/24/2014 on A Whole Two Days 0
User avatar
#65 - slandersalamander (01/24/2014) [-]
Not that I'm saying everyone who likes this movie is an idiot. I just wasn't able to look past it.
User avatar
#64 - slandersalamander (01/24/2014) [-]
I appreciated their attempt to make their characters and plot more original but I felt like it was brought down by generic writing and pandering too much to idiots.
#73 - thepenname (01/24/2014) [-]
Those are still superficial criticisms. How was it generic? In what ways was it pandering? "Generic" and "pandering" are not self-evident. Cite particulars and reference standards and theories set by, for instance, well-known, critically-received films or widely-read critics.
User avatar
#76 - slandersalamander (01/24/2014) [-]
It's generic because they still used tired character archetypes and scenes the sort of which you've seen before, even in the context of a superficially unique story. The main reason I believe the film is pandering is that they felt they had to spend minutes explaining what they did at the end. How many times did we really need to hear that sisterly love was as strong as romantic love?
#83 - thepenname (01/24/2014) [-]
Which character archetypes? What constitutes "tired"? Specify the scenes and explain what particular aspects of them (dialogue, plotting, themes, etc.) we've "seen before." Is heavy-handed exposition necessarily pandering? That sounds more like a signal of pandering, not actually a device for pandering.
User avatar
#84 - slandersalamander (01/24/2014) [-]
Jesus christ I'm just trying to state my opinion, not write a fucking critical review

I have a website for that
#90 - thepenname (01/24/2014) [-]
Yes, you're stating an opinion, but a judgmental one. Though reductive, there are two types of opinions: preferential ones and judgmental ones. Preferential opinions are based off your pure, subject tastes. "I prefer Pepsi over Coke," for instance. It can't be debated. Judgmental opinions compare the subject as if by criteria, such as, "Pepsi is bad." These opinions are especially weak when one fails to establish their criteria. Too often people assume self-ascribed qualities like "bland" are self-evident, when those qualities could be determined using established theories and conventions of relevant crafts. If you don't know the criteria or relevant theories/conventions, refrain from stating judgmental opinions and opt instead for preferential ones. "It felt bland to me" or "these archetypes have worn on me." It's better to be deferential, acknowledging your ignorance of pertinent critical theory, rather than putting your foot in your mouth.
User avatar
#93 - slandersalamander (01/24/2014) [-]
There's a difference between being ignorant and being indifferent. I am utterly indifferent to utilizing critical theory in my assessment of Frozen because I don't see it as having any qualities that are worthy of thorough analysis. As such, I don't really feel required to justify my opinions.
#95 - thepenname (01/24/2014) [-]
Considering how you couldn't satisfy any of my questions or promptings, I'm going to guess you're ignorant of relevant critical theory. That's not even an insult. Ignorance is a fact of being. Can't know everything. It's debatable whether you can know anything at all, but for my purposes, let's specify that you can't be well-versed in every field. If you were adept at film criticism, I doubt you'd be so quick to dismiss Frozen as having no "qualities that are worthy of thorough analysis." Professional critics have analyzed worse films. There's value to the exercise of criticism, even with a mediocre subject. If you don't want to spend the time going to that depth, admit such or say nothing. Or just be sure to phrase everything as a preferential opinion. That way you won't have the long thread of contentions we have here. Opting out of an in-depth analysis on the basis that the subject isn't worth such effort looks arrogant.
User avatar
#98 - slandersalamander (01/24/2014) [-]
I won't deny it being arrogant. If you read my last comment again, you'll see that I said that "I don't see it as having any qualities that are worthy of thorough analysis", which is clearly a preferential statement. I just don't enjoy taking an in-depth look into something I didn't enjoy, which is why I don't see it as worth analyzing.

I'm not going to bother defending myself against implications that I can't review or analyze, since it doesn't matter to me what you think. I'd put the minimum effort in and link you to my archive, but it leads directly back to my personal Facebook account, so that's out of the question.
#102 - thepenname (01/24/2014) [-]
"I just don't enjoy taking an in-depth look into something I didn't enjoy, which is why I don't see it as worth analyzing" is a better preferential statement than "I don't see it as having any qualities that are worthy of thorough analysis." The latter's borderline judgmental, since "I don't see it as" could be interpreted as either your judgmental take or your preferential take. The former I'm completely fine with. I probably wouldn't enjoy spending a ton of time analyzing a film I didn't enjoy that much or even enjoy disliking.

In any case, my main point you should take away from all this is that, like I said earlier, it's better to be deferential, hopefully open-minded or inquisitive, than sharing a surface-level opinion that will no doubt lead to contentions, as we see all up in this thread. Why? 'Cause you can learn more that way.
User avatar
#106 - slandersalamander (01/24/2014) [-]
Well I appreciate your lack of vitriol here. I agree with what you're saying. It's more important to be open to and capable of discussion when a counterargument is presented, and I'll admit I wasn't really doing that in this conversation.
#60 - Have people been pissy about that?  [+] (5 replies) 01/24/2014 on A Whole Two Days 0
User avatar
#69 - Loppytaffy (01/24/2014) [-]
Yes. Whole big controversy row on tumblr. Though they're also pissed that a bunch of Danes in the 19th century were all white.
User avatar
#99 - threeeighteen (01/24/2014) [-]
Yeah but Tumblr jumps into the deep end of the retard pool.
User avatar
#100 - Loppytaffy (01/24/2014) [-]
I know. I never said I supported it, I just know they're pissy about it.
User avatar
#101 - threeeighteen (01/24/2014) [-]
I never said you supported it, just saying that Tumblr is in the deep end of the retard pool.
User avatar
#77 - asheskirata (01/24/2014) [-]
No one gives a fuck what Tumblr thinks.
#71 - Yes it is. I've done it. A lot. And I've learned a ton from it…  [+] (1 reply) 01/20/2014 on Equality vs. Equity 0
User avatar
#72 - wolviewolverine (01/20/2014) [-]
again.. I did not read a single word. But if you feel like it - go on.
#69 - Okay, I get it. You were fine spewing your opinions, but when …  [+] (3 replies) 01/20/2014 on Equality vs. Equity 0
User avatar
#70 - wolviewolverine (01/20/2014) [-]
brbrbdbdbdmns

oh my god, learn already - internet is not a place to argue. evor
#71 - thepenname (01/20/2014) [-]
Yes it is. I've done it. A lot. And I've learned a ton from it. You could do the same. Dismissing debates because they take place on the Internet is backwards thinking. We can access countless information and millions of people. It's the best platform for discussion the world has ever seen. Such discussions have been a part of my life since I was little. They've helped me become the person I am today, a person I am proud to be.

What you consider "the Internet" doesn't account for the millions of websites that don't coalesce with the image that the Internet is just this place for complete nonsense, an image set forth by sites like 4chan, Reddit, FunnyJunk and whatever else. You're living in a smaller bubble than you think.
User avatar
#72 - wolviewolverine (01/20/2014) [-]
again.. I did not read a single word. But if you feel like it - go on.
#67 - How can you say "tl;dr" and also say "then"…  [+] (5 replies) 01/20/2014 on Equality vs. Equity 0
User avatar
#68 - wolviewolverine (01/20/2014) [-]
wow, you really think I am reading these, don't you?haha
#69 - thepenname (01/20/2014) [-]
Okay, I get it. You were fine spewing your opinions, but when someone challenges the nonsense words you were slapping together you play the, "Oh, I don't care, tl;dr, haha, I'm trolling you" card. Great job.
User avatar
#70 - wolviewolverine (01/20/2014) [-]
brbrbdbdbdmns

oh my god, learn already - internet is not a place to argue. evor
#71 - thepenname (01/20/2014) [-]
Yes it is. I've done it. A lot. And I've learned a ton from it. You could do the same. Dismissing debates because they take place on the Internet is backwards thinking. We can access countless information and millions of people. It's the best platform for discussion the world has ever seen. Such discussions have been a part of my life since I was little. They've helped me become the person I am today, a person I am proud to be.

What you consider "the Internet" doesn't account for the millions of websites that don't coalesce with the image that the Internet is just this place for complete nonsense, an image set forth by sites like 4chan, Reddit, FunnyJunk and whatever else. You're living in a smaller bubble than you think.
User avatar
#72 - wolviewolverine (01/20/2014) [-]
again.. I did not read a single word. But if you feel like it - go on.