Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "The Critical Drinker" channel.

@thefilmwatcher1302 You're right, that doesn't automatically make it woke. But he's saying that it will be woke anyway- i.e., the movie will be so focused on the mere fact that they're a diverse cast, that no attention will be paid to good plot, character motivations and arcs, worldbuilding, design, etc. Got it?
5
@jordanmatthews1466 We absolutely do suffer in silence-- I am no stranger to it-- but part of the reason why men are over-represented in suicides, is because we succeed more often. Men's usual method is gun, or jumping from a bridge. Brutal, but-- excuse the word-- effective. Women's method of choice is usually pills or cutting. They don't try any less (not to my knowledge), they just fail more often. So they end up getting help at a higher rate. That being said, I do agree. Men have a more difficult time opening up to people, because it's seen as weak-- sometimes, we're mocked for it, or seen by an s.o as emasculated, and they lose interest. And people wonder why men stay silent...
2
@GizmoFromPizmo True, but Dylan wasn't (at least not in modern form) putting debate points into his songs. It's one thing to make a song with an emotional appeal (what songs do best- and the singer isn't claiming to be better informed than anyone, just feeling a certain way), and another to go onto fucking tv and tell people which candidate to vote for.
1
@TheCemuccia i liked the animated version:(
1
@Nexol13 Quick note on your second point: it's often the opposite. In a college setting, professors are often worse at conveying ideas than instructors are. They're two distinct roles. This professor seemed really bad at teaching, but simultaneously had a poor understanding of what makes a good plot. So it's entirely possible for a professor to be bad at doing, as you saw, and instructors (who take courses designed to teach them how to teach) can conversely be great at 'doing'. In fact, take the quote (misattributed to Einstein, but still good): "If you cannot explain a concept to a five year old, you don't understand it well enough." You can't teach if you don't understand. And you can't do, either.
1
@saymyname2417 I don't doubt theres at least a few directors or screenwriters (?) who do it for that reason, but mostly I think it's because it's a constant source of subversion (getting the audience's attention with the unexpected- since it's, hopefully, obvious to everyone the the opposite is actually true). Though I wouldn't discount that idea, we've already seen it play out many times before. Elvis and Priscilla, Charlie Chaplin, etc.
1
@saymyname2417 I agree, but I'm saying that I think it's extremely unlikely that every single media director is doing that intentionally. It also happens to be a subversion of a commonly accepted order (parent teaches the child). That can also be used for comedy. So while the effect is the same, I dont think everyone doing it wants for there to be role reversal or blurring the lines (ew)
1