Categories
empathy deficit entitled babies gender policing men who should not ever be with women ever misandry misogyny no girls allowed

Sorry, manbabies, the real problem with the Ghostbusters reboot isn’t misandry but racism

Oh, wait, wrong ghost movie
Oh, wait, wrong ghost movie

The We Hunted the Mammoth Pledge Drive is on! If you haven’t already, please consider donating through the PayPal button below. Thanks!

Today will go down in history as a dark day for manbabykind. For today, the lady Ghostbusters trailer dropped. And there was much wailing and tweeting of tweets.

Let’s take a stroll amongst the wailing manbabies on Twitter, indulging their ridiculous rants.

And then let’s talk about what’s really wrong with the Ghostbusters trailer, which has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with race.

First, the manbabies:

There were those who pulled out the old “my childhood has been raped” nonsense.

https://twitter.com/M_Stewarr/status/705445173568868352

There were those who strenuously insisted that their anger at the female Ghostbusters had nothing whatsoever to do with misogyny, nuh-uh, but was rather a reaction to the trailer’s objective terribleness.

https://twitter.com/katmereMUFC/status/705463502278959108

There were the fat-shamers, because at no point in history has a fat person ever been funny.

https://twitter.com/NerdzurK1/status/705500568035397636

There were Trump fans:

https://twitter.com/easternmney/status/705506566758383618

https://twitter.com/jaesex23/status/705499814415486977

Hell, there were so many Trump fans that one observer made a helpful Venn diagram:

There were even a few Knights Who Say Cuck:

https://twitter.com/kcD___/status/705472132185202688

Some raised the specter of WHITE GENOCIDE:

https://twitter.com/TheSamGrady/status/705434158152224772

https://twitter.com/TheSamGrady/status/705496761662578689

Some worried where the evil feminazis would strike next:

Others offered somewhat less comprehensible critiques:

One Tweeter summed up the day on Twitter with a little haiku:

https://twitter.com/luketunderwood/status/705500826580594688

And another Tweeter left us with this existential question:

https://twitter.com/cleotrav/status/705505847129022464

Still another raised the possibility of a second reboot with a rather different cast:

And this guy helped us put it all in perspective:

https://twitter.com/GregorySantos/status/705462910714183680

So what happens once we step back from all the manbaby whining, and the jokes about the manbaby whining. and actually watch the trailer? Well, be my guest:

I don’t know about you, but I’m a bit underwhelmed.

There are a few funny moments, but the trailer sort of steps on them. It’s hard to tell if this is a terrible trailer for a good film, or if the Ghostbusters reboot will end up being, well, basically a female version of Adam Sandler’s godwful Pixels.

But the really distressing thing that the trailer reveals is that the three white gals in the movie are the scientists, while Leslie Jones’ Patty is relegated — or so it seems from the trailer — to the tired, stereotypical role of sassy black sidekick who may not be educated but who “knows the streets.”

This racial/racist failure has not exactly gone unnoticed; it’s already inspired thinkpieces and polemics on sites ranging from The Root to The Inquisitr, as well as in innumerable Tweets.

The original Ghostbusters, however hallowed it has become, was infamous for a similar racial failure. That movie’s “black ghostbuster,” played by Ernie Hudson, was so forgettable, and so obviously a token, that the designer simply left him off of this recently reworked Ghostbusters poster featuring his three white comrades.

Despite all the complaints by angry manbabies about the gender-swap of the main characters, it may well turn out that the real problem with the film isn’t that it’s too radically different from the original, but rather that it is too similar — at least in its inability to imagine a black character as more than a token or a stereotype.

The one thing that gives me some hope is Jones herself, an amazing comedian who may have been able to transform her character into something more nuanced and less stereotypical than what we see in the trailer.

I guess we’ll see.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

205 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Huge&Classy
Huge&Classy
4 years ago

I like the fact they are women. Cool change up. But yes very unfortunate about the “sassy black mama” thing. Here’s hoping it’s decent

katz
4 years ago

Nope, I just saw news of it only making 12 million back on its opening weekend. That is welcome though. I have never hated a movie this much without seeing it. Whitewashing and fucking with mythology–two of my least favorite movie trends.

I watched the whole trailer waiting for something, anything, recognizably Egyptian to show up.

IN51P1D
IN51P1D
4 years ago

Winston seems like a token in the original, but that’s probably more due to bad casting; the part was written for Eddie Murphy, but between the writing and casting, Murphy became an action-comedy superstar. In that context the character makes a lot more sense; he’s supposed to be the down-to-earth everyman, and make sarcastic commentary about the eggheads. You can imagine him selling a line like “I’ve seen things that would turn you white”, which Ernie Hudson kind of couldn’t pull off.

So, I’m keeping an open mind and looking at Leslie Jones that way, as more of an analogue to the Winston that Eddie Murphy could have been.

Also, I have high hopes for Kate McKinnon in this. I think this may be the start of a big career for her.

IN51P1D
IN51P1D
4 years ago

(Just to clarify — I said in my last comment that I think Ernie Hudson’s casting is the reason why Winston seems like a token character, because I suspect that — when they saw that he didn’t have the comic chops for a part written for Eddie Murphy — they cut a lot of his dialogue. Hudson is decent in serious supporting roles, but he can’t stand in for early-80s Eddie Murphy. I mean, who can?)

bruce
bruce
4 years ago

shut up you over aged baby. it sucks because of sexism against men. no one cares why you think it is racist. grow up.

Aris Boch
Aris Boch
4 years ago

The trailer was quite interesting, so maybe it won’t be that much worse than the two original films. The “sassy black streetwise woman” character could be problematic, but doesn’t have to, it all depends on how they handle things in the real movie.

@Tragedy of the Commas March 5, 2016 at 1:27 am
That may be an overdose of optimism, but IF that it’ll true, than it’d be awesome! An openly lesbian character in a blockbuster? That’d be very noice! But even if there will be an openly lesbian character, remember how few films there are, where openly gay/lesbian characters are allowed to have a happy ending with relationship, sanity, pulse and so on intact? The “Bury Your Gays” exist for a reason and I very much hope, that it’ll be avoided here.

DestroyerActual
DestroyerActual
4 years ago

Um no, it has nothing to do with racism you fat whale. It’s glorifying misandrism and ugly fat people. Fuck everyone who thinks its misogynism, you’re part of the problem.

DodoHunter
DodoHunter
4 years ago

“It’s glorifying misandrism” Because women exist in it.

“and ugly fat people” Because fat people exist in it and aren’t portrayed only as jokes and subhumans.

Weaaaaak. Can’t you at least spew some gendered slurs? #TheTriggering was more offensive than you.

Rob
Rob
4 years ago

you know there are a lot of critics from women ghost busters fans criticizing the movie as a bad movie and in no way representative or respectful of the source material that is Ghost Busters. THEIR childhood too has been “raped” And you can’t use the gender card to get away from THEIR evaluations. Having said that the trailer now has over 400,00 dislikes But I am sure in your world view ALL of those dislikes come from “man babies, Trump supporters, and sexists of all ages!” well sometimes you should just quit while you’re ahead because I predict that the number of dislikes is just going to increase over time and not because of the “Racism” that’s supposedly exists either. It’s because this movie has nothing to do with Ghost Busters. Any real fan will explain it to you if you have not seen the original movies.

weirwoodtreehugger
4 years ago

Whether the movie ends up being any good or not, nobody’s childhood has been raped by a movie remake. Fuck off with that.

weirwoodtreehugger
4 years ago

Oh, how did I miss this fabulous necro?

shut up you over aged baby. it sucks because of sexism against men. no one cares why you think it is racist. grow up.

Caring about racism = childish and silly

Calling the mere existence of women in a movie franchise sexist against the men who already have, what was it again? 75% of speaking roles in movies? = TOTALLY LEGIT COMPLAINT

Tragedy of the Commas
Tragedy of the Commas
4 years ago

Trolls with factually inaccurate arguments, disingenuous attempts at identity politics, and narrow-minded gatekeeper logic?

Eff that! Here’s Pepsiman!

C’mon everybody! Let’s dance to the deliciousness!

PEPSIMAAAAAAAAN!

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
4 years ago

It’s glorifying misandrism and ugly fat people.

I always love it when MRAs can’t spell their own made-up buzzwords.

Honestly, it’s their third most-used word after “Females” and “C**t,” you’d think they’d pick it up subconsciously after seeing it for the 34290854397th time that day.

Paradoxical Intention - Resident Cheeseburger Slut

Rob | March 13, 2016 at 8:43 am
you know there are a lot of critics from women ghost busters fans criticizing the movie as a bad movie and in no way representative or respectful of the source material that is Ghost Busters.

You mean the movie that isn’t out yet, and has only had one or two trailers?

THEIR childhood too has been “raped”

No it hasn’t. The original movies still exist. No one retconned a childhood and made it so the original movies still exist.

My childhood wasn’t ruined because of Michael Bay’s TMNT movie, no one’s childhood is going to be ruined over this.

Then again, if all it takes is one movie to “ruin your childhood” then your childhood most likely sucked.

And you can’t use the gender card to get away from THEIR evaluations.

(“The Gender Card”? Really?) So you do agree that a lot of hatred for this movie stems from sexism?

Having said that the trailer now has over 400,00 dislikes But I am sure in your world view ALL of those dislikes come from “man babies, Trump supporters, and sexists of all ages!”

Well, you know what they say about assuming, right? It makes an ass out of “u”, though not “me”, because I’m just laughing.

No one here said that everyone who dislikes the movie is sexist. We’re saying that people kvetching about women Ghostbusters solely because they’re women are sexist.

Way 2 Strawman.

well sometimes you should just quit while you’re ahead because I predict that the number of dislikes is just going to increase over time and not because of the “Racism” that’s supposedly exists either.

“I don’t see it, so it’s not real! I can’t disprove it exists, but I still think you’re wrong!”

So, Rob’s most likely a white dude (who is also most likely cisgendered and heterosexual). Got it.

It’s because this movie has nothing to do with Ghost Busters. Any real fan will explain it to you if you have not seen the original movies.

WOW. That’s some grade-A Mansplaining and Gatekeeping right there. What an absolute turnip. I almost pity you for your need for exclusion against people who like the same things you do. But I don’t. Because turnip.

And what a grand assumption that none of us have seen the movies (or read the comics, or seen any of the TV shows) and aren’t “real fans” (I suppose that means you’re all figments of my imagination), and another grand assumption that you know what the movie’s all about from a trailer.

Tsk, tsk, Rob. Tsk, tsk.

weirwoodtreehugger
4 years ago

And what a grand assumption that none of us have seen the movies

I’m 35 years old and I bet most of the men complaining about this ruining their childhoods are younger than that. Meaning, I probably saw Ghostbusters before they did. In some cases, before they were even born. They think feeemales only started getting into geeky things a few years ago when it started to become cool, so they try gatekeeping movies and games against women who have been into them years, if not decades longer. It’s hilarious.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
4 years ago

Shit, the DVD case is literally less than three feet away from me right now. Unless my silly little ladybrainz are imagining things, I suppose.

Mike Mckay
Mike Mckay
4 years ago

To be honest I thought the trailer itself was quite good, certainly worth a download

As for the comments though, putting the obvious loons aside many of the others just read as tongue in cheek humour and the rest are no different to any other criticism when an iconic film is remade but deviates from the original dynamic

If someone remade salt in 30 years with a male leading role I guarantee that (by then) 58th wave feminists would be throwing themselves off buildings in protest claiming misogyny “made” them do it all the way to the ground

If someone remade the sum of all fears and replaced morgan freeman with a white man, or white woman then black activists would be crying that its a slight on black people everywhere

Objectively I have to be honest though and say that I really cant see WHY someone even has to do it. It would have taken very little imagination to have made it a spin off, the daughters of the original people having to dust off their fathers equipment to deal with a NEW infestation or something along those lines.

So yeah, even with the nutters I can see to some extent what their objection is really although its just as likely to be due to the current trend of utter laziness and half assed movie creation in the film industry rather than feminists wanting to try and poke a stick in the eye of all men who liked the original film first time round. And as with most things its probably a mixture of the two to some extent rather than being exclusively just one or the other

Although I would guess the laziness angle takes the lions share of the blame

Chris
Chris
4 years ago

I’ve been so very disappointed by the stereotypical characterization of Patty to the point that I can’t even see myself sitting through this movie on television or Netflix. It may be Jones’ style, but that doesn’t make it any less troubling. It’s not only groan-inducing in its utter lack of freshness, but it makes me uncomfortable, Jones’ (somewhat feeble, I think) defense on Twitter notwithstanding.

The character is a walking pile of worn-out tropes. No matter how well Jones plays those tropes, they’re still tired—and racist.

Who thought this was a good idea?

Steve Hoff
Steve Hoff
4 years ago

Manbabies? Good god your misandry is oozing.

Mike Mckay
Mike Mckay
4 years ago
Reply to  Steve Hoff

Trying to insult or undermine either a mans maturity or his masculinity has always been both the main and most commonly used weapons in womens arsenal

Well, when they cant use childish strops or with holding sex to get their own way of course lol.

And considering that complaining about irrelevant or imaginary nonsense seems to be womens main hobby nowadays its quite laughable to see them expend so much energy on criticising other peoples complaining.

Its on a par with the level of hypocrisy and stupidity needed for America to criticise the actions of Israel considering how they got THEIR country to begin with lol

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
4 years ago

Get your bingo cards out, everyone. Another idiot is here to say the same crap as all the others.

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

So, a bunch of manbabies whining about a movie having girl cooties is evidence of feeemaale hypocrisy and evilness? Seems legit.

Also, I think Mikey here missed the fact that the author of this blog is a man.

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

And I just realized that this was a thread necro. Why not whinge in the current Ghostbusters thread?

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

Not to spam this thread or anything, but I just scrolled up and realized that Mike already necro’d this thread two months ago. Did he forget to put up an “already been drive by trolled” checkmark on WHTM or something?

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
4 years ago

@wwth

I saw that too. I guess he didn’t get any attention for the last comment, so he had to come back and say basically the same thing again. :p

Viscaria
Viscaria
4 years ago

And I just realized that this was a thread necro. Why not whinge in the current Ghostbusters thread?

I wondered exactly the same thing. Considering that there were two of them in the span of 2 hours, maybe it was linked on some unpleasant forum or another?

Mike Mckay
Mike Mckay
4 years ago

Nope, but I did apparently forget to post the definition of what a “discussion” is, and that rather than a collection of singular posts by each person often tend to have many responses by each person to multiple posts by other people lol

So I saw a new post which I wanted to reply to amongst the myriad of others that I didn’t.

No need to whinge and cry about it like a baby though, its an online “discussion” so last time I checked dysfunctional feminazis hadn’t made posting more than once on a discussion illegal for men YET 🙂

But please let me know when that happens and I might consider altering my posting behaviour accordingly at that point in time, or not. Dependant on my mood at the time

Thank you for your interest though as irrelevant as it might be

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
4 years ago

Is anybody able to figure out if the troll is actually trying to say anything?

weirwoodtreehugger
4 years ago

I think he’s trying to say that mocking necro trolls is a sign that feminists are jackbooted thugs who want to censor men?

Mike Mckay
Mike Mckay
4 years ago

I don’t need to point that out as so much crying, whining, stamping of ickle feets, throwing of tiaras in outrage and blathering on about the poster who dared to have the audacity to post more than once on a discussion rather than actually discussing the topic itself is doing a far better job of showing that far better than anything I could have written would ever have done 🙂

Which is made even more laughably hypocritical by the fact that in doing so several of you have now also posted more than once. But I am sure something so blatantly obvious is probably still beyond your comprehension

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

I never throw my tiaras. The ground is way too nasty and dirty for anything in the vicinity of my precious face to touch. Dirty floor tiaras are for inferior menz.
Plus, throwing takes too much energy. I make my manservants do all my throwing for me.

EJ (The Other One)
4 years ago

God damn, you manospherians like the sound of your own voices. That was 134 words to say “no u.” 91 of those words were in the same run-on sentence.

Tell me, Mike, is “uselessly taking up space” also something you do at work and in bed, or is it reserved for your leisure hours?

Mike Mckay
Mike Mckay
4 years ago

That’s just a matter of perspective.

Not having a brain so addled by being a part of the “twitter” generation I can manage to comprehend things that are more than a dozen or so words in a row and don’t need things dumded down to the level that a dead goldfish could understand nor do I need nor want to learn to bastardise the language with “txt spk”.

So wow, not content with throwing childish hissy fits because someone actually comments more than once on a “discussion” now you are sinking to the level of grammar Nazis,

You must feel so proud and worthwhile focusing on such “pressing issues” as a person replying to two different posts on the same topic.

Even funnier that some sad sacks scrolled back to find out if I had posted before which I had been totally unaware of at the time. Not that it is in the slightest bit relevant anyway as its actually common for people to post dozens of times in “discussions”.

Which I would wager many of the whingey crybabies complaining about me doing it have also done on this very thread. Although I wont bother checking back to find out as I’m just not that pathetic or desperate to have something to say that I would think to sink to such a level in the first place lol. But I am sure one of you mindless harpies will be straight on that “urgent task” when you have a few minutes between your daytime shopping channels, soaps and reality TV

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
4 years ago

He’s under the impression that run-on sentences are a sign of intellectual superiority. Jebus.

mildlymagnificent
mildlymagnificent
4 years ago

Not having a brain so addled by being a part of the “twitter” generation I can manage to comprehend things that are more than a dozen or so words in a row …

I take it from your tone and content here that you’re claiming maturity &or great age leading to good taste and wisdom as well as conservative use of written language.

Pfffft. You lose. I’m in my 70th year with exactly the kind of rigorous instruction in grammar and spelling that you’d expect from 1950s primary school. And I’m not the only one here with such a background and I’m also not the only one here who’s never touched twitter or facebook.

Lose the attitude. Don’t make silly, shallow presumptions about people you’ve never met. You may not do any better with getting people to respond to you the way you might prefer, but at least you won’t look like a fool.

Mike Mckay
Mike Mckay
4 years ago

Lol, funny you should say that as my post was in response to those exact types of “assumptions” in response to my way of wording things.

Something you “conveniently” seemed to miss, and where although you felt compelled to criticise me for making a comment about the way people choose to word their comments you didn’t feel inclined to extend to the posts I was responding to.

Hadnt the word “constistency” been invented when you learnt all that grammar?

In fact your post was similarly “wordy” but I will bet absolutely nobody will be coming along to make similar comments as the comments themselves weren’t substantive in nature but were merely petty, childish digs in lieu of anything valid or on topic to contribute to the discussion.

As for them being “shallow” presumptions I disagree. Somebody choosing to attack the poster on a discussion rather than actually responding to their points is pathetic, its not an assumption, its an observation of quite self evident behaviour akin to a child responding with “yeah but youre a poo poo head” when they have nothing worthwhile to say so no “presumption” is necessary as the behaviour is hardly subtle nor needing any investigative skills to be seen.

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
4 years ago

choosing to attack the poster on a discussion rather than actually responding to their points

He thinks he’s made “points”.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
4 years ago

Mikey, the problem with your run-on sentences isn’t just their readability (which is low – punctuation exists for a reason). It’s also that they give the impression of a red-faced, googly-eyed rage zombie screaming a hundred mangry words without taking a breath.

Then again, it’s probably a very accurate impression.

MRAs are always so emotional.

ej
ej
4 years ago

Somebody choosing to attack the poster on a discussion rather than actually responding to their points…

What points were you trying to make? You came in here to post a comment on an old thread, whining that women are childish and manipulative. That’s not really adding anything substantive to the discussion that you seem to value so highly. You started this “discussion” by insulting women. Why are you surprised that no one is taking you seriously?

Paradoxical Intention - Mobile
Paradoxical Intention - Mobile
4 years ago

@ej: Because Mikey-Wikey has a penis, and therefore everything he says obviously adds to the discussion because with great penis comes great brains.

Or so I’ve been told. By men who just so happen to be attached to penises. [/sarcasm]

Seriously though, I like that his (unsubstantiated) “point” was “Feminists are whiny, jackbooted little Nazis!” And now he’s acting all superior because there’s really naught but nonsense in that little ass nugget, so we’re obviously not going to address it with any sincerity.

I mean, if I walked up to Mike and called him a raging misogynistic rancid pile of cheese, he’d be slightly baffled at first, but I doubt he’d address that seriously.

Or if he did, I’d have to bring snacks so I don’t starve during his long-winded “retort”.

EJ (The Other One)
4 years ago

Hadnt the word “constistency” been invented when you learnt all that grammar?

Skitt’s Law states that any post correcting an error in another post will contain at least one error itself.

I’m making cheap shots about Mike’s language skills because he hasn’t made any serious points. As and when he makes some serious points, I’m very happy to reply to them.

In fact, let’s start some discussions on weighty topics. Since Mike is a man who loves intelligence and takes himself seriously, he will doubtless have valuable points to make on the matter.

@ej:
I read your paper on API20E and ID32E profiles, and really liked it. I’m not familiar with microbiology as a field but I get the impression that the entire paper can be read as pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes.

I was surprised at the extent to which Cronobacter had been misidentified. Is this a common thing? What’s the story behind that, and is there literature on it?

@All:
Today, one of Britain’s police departments announced that it would treat misogyny as hate speech, “except in cases of domestic abuse which are already criminal and so are treated separately.”

Thoughts? I’m not comfortable with that exclusion for domestic abuse, but I recognise that overall this is a victory and don’t want to commit a Nirvana fallacy.

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

Why do trolls always think that their misogynistic insults count as points that need to be debated seriously? Why are they surprised that they’re mocked on a site about mocking misogyny? Why do they always assume that everyone commenting here is a woman? And why do they never, ever know that brevity is the soul of wit?

dslucia
dslucia
4 years ago

@WWTH:

Because John Galt.

I think the “haha you people have no lives, you scrolled up all of two posts to see I’d posted here already!” bit was the funniest so far, myself.

Viscaria
Viscaria
4 years ago

Mike, you’ve now compared two groups of people to Nazis: feminists, and people who care too deeply about “correct” grammar. (That second one is a bit ironic, considering how you insult those who “bastardise the language with ‘txt spk'” in your very next sentence, but that’s beside the point so I’ll move on.) To compare people you vaguely dislike to Nazis is to seriously minimize the horror of what the original Nazis did, and it ignores the existence of Nazis today. That is anti-semitic.

A few more thoughts:

1) “Txt spk” hasn’t really been a thing in like 10 years, but good try.

2) You did not join a discussion either of the times that you necro’ed this thread. If you enter a currently empty room, but one where people had been talking several months ago, and you loudly shout your opinions on that months-old conversation to the four walls, that’s not a discussion. That’s just you talking to yourself. And if you happen attract the attention of your neighbours with your caterwauling, thus sparking a new conversation, it makes perfect sense that the subject of that conversation would be “Why is this guy talking to himself instead of joining one of the many discussions in progress? And why has he done this more than once?”

3) Evil women “withholding sex,” oh no, how dare we choose what happens to our own bodies. Behold this great and terrible power I hold over exactly one man, who can go ahead and wank off in the bathroom if he wants to.

ej
ej
4 years ago

@EJ (TOO)

I get the impression that the entire paper can be read as pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes.

I’m glad you liked the paper. I hadn’t really thought about it in this way, but that description does fit really well. If methods are recommended by regulatory agencies to meet the criteria applied to a product, they need to be accurate. 80% correct for your target organism just isn’t good enough, especially when we are talking about such a vulnerable population.

There have been misidentifications of other species as Cronobacter, which means we may not be recognizing hazards when they appear. I can send you a couple papers, if you don’t mind sharing your email address. I don’t want to clog up the thread with a microbiology discussion (and I don’t want to link to my own work on a thread with a recent necro-troll).

EJ (The Other One)
4 years ago

And I got distracted by data crunching and missed the window. Ah well.

David, could you delete that, please?

ej
ej
4 years ago

@EJ (TOO)

Got it! You can delete the comment.

Sammy
Sammy
4 years ago

except it is about sexism and racism. THIS MOVIE clearly portrays that! it makes all the men look like idiots an asshole, next to barely competent women. its not funny, clever or witty in anyway. its a really bad cash grab turd burger, that claims the so called ”haters” are sexists, whilst trying to sell a movie that is sexist in itself. no manbabies, just people with an IQ over 5 making an accurate analysis of a really, really terrible film.

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

Dude. This is not even the most recent Ghostbusters thread! It’s hilarious to me that you guys claim you aren’t being manbabies while simultaneously necroing old threads to whine about a movie. Why did you even go see it if you hate it so much? What do you hope to accomplish by complaining about it here? I just don’t get why this meltdown seems destined to never end.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
4 years ago

But don’t forget, worrying about rape is a “First World problem.”

*eyes go rolling under the fridge*