The Walking Dead : Bee is savage

https://filmboards.com/board/p/19652384/permalink/#p19652384

Lol I mean… How do you disagree with that?!

That's just one of the reasons PC is awesome though. He always wants to take the opposite side even if there is none. It's great

So very true.

absolutely i actually saw ur exchange before u made ur comment and wanted to warn u "u can not argue with this opinionated gay old man. run!" but then i thought "nah Bee is gonna slay him for that herself!"

and i see that's exactly what u did




i love Gameboy tho, he's no troll who cannot let go,. when i signal him this convo is over, then it's over. hence our convos rarely exceed 5 timees back and forth, which is relaxing.

---

suck it.

Hey Kirk

jc some socks

Kirk, huh? wow,so him too? how v disappointing

---

suck it.

I don't mind. It's how he flirts. He's one of my favs.

lol yeah imma pretend i didnt see dat shit cuz i like non-horny Kirk too

back to goofy daffy duck Kirk Lol 💦💦💦

---

suck it.

I like him too. Sometimes I want to pointlessly argue stuff too so I don't mind lol

The only thing that's a little annoying, and I'm only speaking to the few conversations we've had, he doesn't seem to want to acknowledge when someone proves his point wrong or be open to changing his mind. And I don't find conversations like that very productive. There's no real point in entering into them.

But besides that I enjoy PC and I like reading his posts.

it's probably some sort of compulsive disorder that he suffers from, to be always right. no exceptions.

like i'd like to share some political ideas with Gameboy since we seem to match there in what we both agree with,. him with anarchist-syndicalism and me with anarcha-feminism/humanism. when he first heard that this is the philosophy i'm currently getting into and agree with, he immediately got all euphoric and posted links and his flag and began to list all the aspects of why he thinks syndicalism is superior to what i believe in and that's when i knew, "ok i lost this before we even started" and i replied "ok Gameboy" and he was like "wait that's all u have to answer? i love to talk about politics and to share and exchange!" -me: "i'm sorry i have no patience rn for this, but i'm sure we will have many more occasions like this and then we can talk, but not now. i don't wanna lose how i'm feeling rn, calm." - and he let me go like many without further ado. and i always came out peacefully from a debate with Gameboy.

that's why dumbasses like Orson or hungry or AJ hate Gameboy, bc they always lose against him and that hurts the little macho man's pride. lol i love that, that they never stand a chance, and never learn bc they get themselves into Gameboy's ass whoopin every time anew, Gameboy doesn't even have to do much and they are so riled up within minutes, hahahah. it's hilarious to watch, and the trolls look so dumb when Gameboy sends them into sweet melties.

Friday night lights. heh

---

suck it.

Get used to that. I have been dealing with that since 2007. I bested him in debates on Christianity and another on Zionism.

But he will never acknowledge it. He has lost many many debates. But in Fairness he also won many debates. Stupid is not a word that applies to him. He is Gay and always nefarious in his intentions but he is intelligent.

---

The only poster who had his account banned 4 times without ever breaking any rules each of those times.

he is very gay and very intelligent, yes. amazingly so.

---

suck it.

The guy's an idiot. Only an idiot would fail to realize that. Or a potato. Or an idiotic potato.

Lol I agree with you about him being gay and intelligent. I think there's what frustrates me, he is really smart but not logical! Still like him though

very eloquently put, Ms Bee. what a lovely thread ur thread it turned out to be. so many nuances, so much life. a kaleidoscope of this board. and so vey very gay.

---

suck it.

Thank you, Sophie

garden's #1 fan!

Separating the art from the artist is impossible, anyway. Sure, there's nothing wrong with enjoying stories produced by an individual modern readers deem "problematic." However, the beliefs, experiences, and cultural indoctrination of an author are inextricable from the work he or she produces. It's ignorant to presume that art exists in a vacuum.

---

Hark! Harold the angel sings.

^boom. Yes. I'm glad Jacky is smart so I don't have to be.

I think it was an unnecessary distinction on his part since even if separated that still left your "overrated bore" assessment intact. I agree with you insomuch as an author's views and beliefs can and often will bleed over into their work in some fashion, but not always (well… not always in a way that ruins the integrity of their writing)—or that it can't be *separated.

*and by separated, I just mean fucked up opinions held by the writer won't necessarily hinder my ability to enjoy their work (unless it's front and center or used to beat you over the head or something)

Of course! There's nothing wrong with enjoying work produced by a person with fucked-up opinions. One of my favourite books, Hugo's "Notre-Dame de Paris," has been lampooned as being incredibly racist toward gypsies. I acknowledge that but love it anyway.

---

Hark! Harold the angel sings.

Separating the art from the artist is impossible

What if you don't know anything about the artist?

Then your understanding of the work will be limited. Though, of course there are arguments for the merits of formalism. I'm just a stubborn cultural poeticist.

---

Hark! Harold the angel sings.

I'd argue the opposite; knowledge of the artist distorts your view of their work. You can't know everything about them, whereas the entirety of their artwork is available for you to interpret.

No work of art was produced in a vacuum, and cannot be interpreted as though it was. Art is transactional. It's important to know context. The author forms only a sliver of that context. When was the author born? What culture was he or she born into? What societal sect of that culture? What socioeconomic status? What was society like at the time the work was produced? What relationship did it have with the world around it? What were its fears, controversies, conflicts, movements, values, and laws? What new discoveries were being made? What long-held societal beliefs were being shaken? How did that society react to the work when it was first published? How do modern readers react to it?

Lovecraft wrote his works in a time that was as tumultuous as the Victorian era. Nothing about life was readily comprehensible any longer, as the writers of the Enlightenment or the Transcendentalists believed. Up-and-coming were the brooding, fragmented "nada y pues nada" authors like Hemingway. Lovecraft's readers were dealing with a growing lack of meaning in a world that was headed quickly toward two world wars and an upset unlike anything it had yet seen. Their anxieties and their fears were altogether different from the fears of the Tudors, for example. Gone were the days of the wicked witch, and upon us were the days when eldritch abominations threatened to overtake the idea of God.

That is important to know and to understand when studying Lovecraft, whether or not we know how he took his tea.

---

Hark! Harold the angel sings.

Ah, I see why we're disagreeing. You're talking about apples and I'm talking about oranges. You originally said:

Separating the art from the artist is impossible, anyway. Sure, there's nothing wrong with enjoying stories produced by an individual modern readers deem "problematic." However, the beliefs, experiences, and cultural indoctrination of an author are inextricable from the work he or she produces. It's ignorant to presume that art exists in a vacuum.

You have to realize I wasn't part of the original discussion, so I was going off what you said there. To experience (enjoy/dislike) the art, there's no need to know who the artist is. If you want to understand (analyse/critique) the art, then I agree with you.

Oh! My apologies. I'm talking about interpreting/analysing a work requiring recognition of the artist. I agree with you; you don't need to know a single thing about an author to enjoy his or her stories.

---

Hark! Harold the angel sings.

No, no. You're doing it all wrong. This isn't what it said on the advert. You're supposed to call me an idiot or in some way twist my words and falsely claim 'victory'.

@nimda I want a refund.

I'm sorry…stupidhead?

---

Hark! Harold the angel sings.

Separating the art from the artist is impossible, anyway.

true. even tho i'd like to sth i just can't. it never feels right or i'm being honest.

---

suck it.