DUNE sisters...

DUNE sisters...

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How many stars are there in the universe?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Bout 3.50

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        More than there are stars in the universe!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        More than six. I'm positive about that.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          what are you thinkin then in your calculations? you talking double digits? pretty hard to imagine

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        literally dozens

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        around a bit

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        there are over 400 billion in the milky way alone

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        bout 350

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        2-300

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    N

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      EIL

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I called him that word once here on Cinemaphile last year.
      The fricking jannies banned me not just from tv, but from the entire website.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        bc he's a glowie most likely.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    oh no not the heckin Black personino detector

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      i hate you homosexuals but life would really be unbearable without you

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        shut up b***h grow thicker skin

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Let me guess what this midwit illiterate Black person's argument is, that they can't breathe on a desert planet because you need trees for oxygen

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No, it's that they just move in a straight line without any undulations.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        So does jet planes, he is a fricking hack

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          you can't understand why using a method of travel based on air displacement is different than a long slithering worm propelled on friction? are you stupid?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >you need trees for oxygen
      You mainly need cyto plankton for that. Trees are good, but we could live without them.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Plankton shills out in force

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Sand plankton do the same thing moron

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Armond White
    >Hideo Kojima
    >Neil Degrasse Tyson
    Bros why do they all hate Dunc?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Kojimbo

      wrong

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This gay is exhausting

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          He invented filmmaking. You ought to kneel.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He's not even the best Japanese filmmaker.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Are you sure about that?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >This is cinema!
        this is what i stood up and shouted during my screening

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >phone or tablet

        do these people not have tvs anymore? no idea why anyone would subject themselves to watching anything of substance on a screen smaller than my dick.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The only screen that meets that criteria.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I don't own a TV. I haven't for years. I watch all my movies on my laptop, and I watch YouTube videos on my phone. I also have a Nintendo Switch.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          they're too busy doing the Hussle.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No way he wrote that

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >phone or tablet

        do these people not have tvs anymore? no idea why anyone would subject themselves to watching anything of substance on a screen smaller than my dick.

        Dennis Vileneuf will be disappointed to hear that people aren't watching DUNC as intended, on a fricking telephone.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >what is the Japanese equivalent of a weeb for western culture

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Westaboo

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >movie buff
        >only watches surface level flicks

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          but for him, they're all foreign films, which makes him mysterious and sophisticated

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What a homosexual...so many English words over 10 letters long. Who the frick helped you write that nip?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >so many English words over 10 letters long
          >you are too eloquent, you nip!
          The absolute state of Zoomers. Yea, he should totally be typing like lol yo dis movee hittn kinda deep tho haha

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I BET HIS JAP ASS CLAPPED LIKE THR AMERICAN WEABOO THAT HE IS!

        What a shitty review!
        It's screams of someone who possibly invested in DUNE 2 and will get royalties/kickbacks based on the movies success.

        You can tell by the way it's worded

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Peak midwit pseud

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Armond White
        >Hideo Kojima
        >Neil Degrasse Tyson
        Bros why do they all hate Dunc?

        Of course he likes Dune. It has one of the female stars of his newest games in it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >movie is good because you can watch it on big screen

        this talking point fricking sucks.
        They said exactly the same with Oppenheimer, and the film wasn't even that good. Are we just going back to the CinemaScope astroturfing era but now with IMAX.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          IMAX peaked with Avatar. Dunc 2 just had cinematography more reminiscent of Lawrence of Arabia than the first one did. People are falling in love with SAND OMG all over again. Prep your bussy for a LoA remake.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The way non stem/scifi fans drool over scifi is so exhausting. These low iq mongoloid can't appreciate novel ideas or futuristic world building.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      they're literally me
      except kojima I'm not that moronic

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You missed Paul Schrader but I don't blame you if you find him irrelevant

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What was PoSchrae's take?

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    FUN FACT:
    (you) can only kiss yourself on the lips in a mirror
    for more fun facts email me at [email protected]

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        that 3rd tweet was going too hard, too early and he had to pull himself back

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >for more fun facts email me at [email protected]
      When we needed him most, he returned.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why wasn't that Star Wars official account banned for spreading misinformation? The expert weighed in, and he is clearly right. He's an expert, after all.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      kek

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >kiss a mirror
        >"You kissed your lips"
        This Black person doesn't even know what a reflection is, and that you're kissing glass. When your lips actually touch the glass, no light passes through, so you're not even kissing the image of your lips.
        Just glass.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Young niglets, like chimpanzees, don't recognize their image in a mirror. I'll give him a pass, it's dey cultcha'

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You truly need to be a world-renowned astrophysicist to come up with thoughts like this.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        ah yes, i too steal content /r/showerthoughts

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Zesty

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Is he Jayden Smith's real father?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        uh... actually, you are not actually kissing yourself, but merely the mirror

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >doesn't know about his mirror twin

          He knows about you though...

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        His words really came back to bite him on his lips here

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Are you still a gay Black person if you only get zesty with yourself in the mirror?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They used a puppet when they could and cgi when it was impossible.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Neil posts are basically invitations to get btfo.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >i love when my corporate marketing team blows the frick out of a scientist

        do you seriously think you're the smart person here?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >do you seriously think you're the smart person here?
          On 2015+9 Cinemaphile? Do you think anybody's the smart person here?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You're defending a scientist from steak-umms. Couldn't you find a more useful way to apply your intelligence?

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Growing up and realizing the "smartest" black man in the world is just some cringe midwit

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      up and realizing the "smartest" black man in the world is just some cringe midwit
      Many such cases.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I could respect Sagan.
    Not this one though.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Before this shithead came around there was a show on PBS called Scientific American Frontiers with Alan Alda. It was great. If it wasn't for black science man it would probably still be on.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >PBS called Scientific American Frontiers
        Akschually. Thank you, sounds like something worth my time to watch.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's good. Alda isn't a pompous ass and is genuinely interested and curious about the topics on the show. And since he's not some know-it-all he's asking good questions throughout.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's good. Alda isn't a pompous ass and is genuinely interested and curious about the topics on the show. And since he's not some know-it-all he's asking good questions throughout.

        Absolutley based Scientific American Frontiers Chad. You nailed it perfectly with why Alda was a great hosts. We used to watch that show all the time as a family after dinner.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yes. Tyson could be the smartest man in earth but he sucks as a TV personality. Alda was so much better.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Carl Sagan loved Dune.
      I doubt Tyson has even read the book.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The Door into Summer is about a guy using time travel to marry his business partner's eleven year old daughter.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          time jannies on suicide watch

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Carl Sagan loved Dune.
        Which means he would have hated DUNC.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      :DDDD

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What? Was the night sky not real or something?

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If he’s so smart how come he never learned when to shut up because nobody cares?

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Black Bill Nye smells his own farts.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Did you know you can only kiss yourself on the lips in the mirror?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes. I also learned that my reflection uses way too much tongue.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    NDT has a problem with biological sex, and confuses it with gender.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They're the same thing

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Ok, Neil. Biological sex is real, and gender is pseudo-science that should have died in the 20th century.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Gender just means the social concept. women wearing high heels is a gender thing, not a biological thing. its real in the sense that gender roles are real

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, they're not. Because they change, and ignore the times that they're wrong.
            >only females wear skits
            >except for the cultures where men do
            >only females wear dresses
            >except for our history where rich people used to dress their babies in dresses, regardless of biological sex
            >only females like pink
            >except when pink was for boys and blue was for girls
            >only females wear makeup
            >except all those times that males used to wear makeup or are required to for stage performances now
            And so on.
            Gender is made-up pseudo-science that ignores all of history, to try and talk about current stereotypes, but does so in the stupidest way.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Go stick a tampon up your ass

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Until 2023, tampons and pads weren't even tested for effectiveness with blood. They tested them with water. So a tampon is better qualified to soak up diarrhea, than period blood.
                Keep coping about your fake pseudo-science.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              You're 97% similar genetically to a chimp, therefore we should put you in a cage nude and let people gawk at your disgusting physique.
              Given your similarity to chimps, you probably also wack off in public and throw shit, too.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >you probably also wack off in public and throw shit, too.
                Based Diogenes.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_and_Alexander
                >Thereupon many statesmen and philosophers came to Alexander with their congratulations, and he expected that Diogenes of Sinope also, who was tarrying in Corinth, would do likewise. But since that philosopher took not the slightest notice of Alexander, and continued to enjoy his leisure in the suburb Craneion, Alexander went in person to see him, and he found him lying in the sun. Diogenes raised himself up a little when he saw so many people coming towards him, and fixed his eyes upon Alexander. And when that monarch addressed him with greetings, and asked if he wanted anything, "Yes," said Diogenes, "stand a little out of my sun."[7] It is said that Alexander was so struck by this, and admired so much the haughtiness and grandeur of the man who had nothing but scorn for him, that he said to his followers, who were laughing and jesting about the philosopher as they went away, "But truly, if I were not Alexander, I wish I were Diogenes."[8]

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                diogenes replied "if i were not diogenes i would also wish i were diogenes"

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              but that is reinforcing gender. what you posted is that its indicative of society, which is what gender insists. Gender is just social roles dependent on culture. its different than a stereotype

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >but that is reinforcing gender
                No, it's not. It's showing that gender stuff is completely arbitrary. They're trying to talk about stereotypes, but are too moronic to do so properly.
                >what you posted is that its indicative of society
                Which shows that gender roles aren't real, because if a culture thinks that make-up is for girls, but still accepts that guys wear it for various reasons, both currently and historically, then gender is a meaningless concept.
                >Gender is just social roles dependent on culture. its different than a stereotype
                Stereotype "a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing"
                Gender role "how we're expected to act, speak, dress, groom, and conduct ourselves based upon our assigned sex"
                Gender is a subset of stereotype, and stereotypes aren't a meaningful classification of anything but averages.
                It's a stereotype that Germans are tall. That doesn't mean that there's no short Germans, just that on average, if you meet a German, they'll be tall.
                Same shit with gender. It's a meaningless concept.
                Which is why biological sex is real, and gender isn't.
                Leftists scream bloody murder about stereotypes, when it helps them. But then use them when it helps them.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You're moronic. Also, you will never be a woman but don't let that stop you from trying.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'm literally arguing against the LGBT+ shit about trans women are real women. What's it like being that moronic?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Whatever. Sterilize yourself anyway.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                no. we accept that society has different social rules for men and women. there's no way you'd argue against that, certainly we get closer to that not being the case, but as it stands there is. that social difference is called gender. whether or not its arbitrary, or dependant on traits can be up to you, but these things do exist socially. Sure, its made up, but that doesn't mean its not a real phenomenon within society. Serious people don't argue that its a self imposed thing humans do, but they also don't argue humans don't do it.
                obviously in contemporary culture war bullshit the whole trans thing has complicated discourse about it, but you are describing gender as you decry it. Language isn't 'real' either by your metric, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have these parameters we can observe.
                I, personally, don't care about gender, and think its a reductive look at this stuff, but you're sort of ignoring the primary areas where its helpful in social studies. if i say someone is handsome, thats a gender term, if i say someone is a b***h, thats a gender term. it might not be real in the sense where it can have a material thing to point to, but its a concept we all understand, and therefor needs to be referred to in some way

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >we accept that society has different social rules for men and women
                Which aren't based on biological facts, and are completely arbitrary, as they change throughout time, and aren't universally true within society.
                >Sure, its made up
                Glad we sorted this out. Not sure why you kept writing.
                >Serious people don't argue that its a self imposed thing humans do, but they also don't argue humans don't do it.
                "It's rules that we follow and are completely made up, but also it's not a self imposed thing"
                lol
                lmao even
                It's completely self-imposed. There's no reason for men to not wear skits, aside from our self-imposition, as Scottish men wear them, and it's completely accepted.
                >Language isn't 'real' either by your metric
                It's not, and the "English" they spoke 800 years is barely even something we can even understand. No words have a definite meaning, that includes everything that should be included and exclude everything that should be excluded. Not a single word. Not chair, or game, or anything.
                > if i say someone is a b***h, thats a gender term
                Not at all. Resting b***h Face is gender neutral. So is Karen, which means "bitch" in a lot of cases.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                karen and resting b***h face are not gender neutral lol.

                words don't have a definite meaning across the board, language is fluid, there are new terms all the time. Slang is the most obvious example, but language is decided by the masses. thats why your example of english changing reinforces my point, it wasn't changed by some authority, its 'arbitrary' as you say, based on what people use.

                as for the rest, showing that gender rules are different in different cultures doesn't make them non existent, it simply proves its dependant on social standards. Why do women wear high heels and men don't? if gender wasn't real, it would be equal. clearly something else is going on. where that derives from is worth noting.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >karen and resting b***h face are not gender neutral lol.
                They absolutely are.
                >it wasn't changed by some authority
                It absolutely is. Words become official by groups like Oxford University Press, who literally decide what words to add, and then they stop being slang.
                I've used this example before, but Bootylicious(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootylicious) stopped being slang in 2004, and can be used in any legal or scholarly documents.
                >it simply proves its dependant on social standards
                No, it means that they're not linked to biological sex, and aren't anything meaningful. No more so than the English word "rock" being "rocher" in French.
                >Why do women wear high heels and men don't?
                Because men aren't masochistic enough to ruin our feet and spine, for the goal of making our spines have an appealing arch.
                >if gender wasn't real, it would be equal. clearly something else is going on
                Yes, sexual characteristics. Women want to further enhance their sexual characteristics, and are willing to sacrifice their feet, to be more appealing to men. Women don't care enough about footgays, and would rather target the general population.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                the oxford dictionary themselves would say they don't decide when words form, they are merely a record keeping institution of defining usage when something is large enough to accept. you're wrong here. they don't decide, the record.
                >Because men aren't masochistic enough to ruin our feet and spine, for the goal of making our spines have an appealing arch.

                except men do care about height, but will hide their heels inside of their shoes. look at Ron Desantis's boots, he's got little heelies inside his shoes.
                I can tell you as a bartender wearing mascara gets me more tips, but socially, if its known i wear mascara its looked down upon. women enhance their eyelashes despite men having longer eyelashes naturally because eyelashes are seen as feminine. even though biology dictates the reverse.
                Look at that whole metrosexual fad, men were being called gay just for caring about their looks, because men aren't supposed to care about that stuff. these are social pressures. its really a denial of reality to pretend these pressures don't exist.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >bartender
                >mascara
                end it

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                why? i have a good life

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the oxford dictionary themselves would say they don't decide when words form, they are merely a record keeping institution of defining usage when something is large enough to accept. you're wrong here. they don't decide, the record.
                No, once it's in the dictionary, it stops being slang, and starts being an official word. They get into the dictionary, through popularity, but then once in the dictionary, they're official words.
                That's how you know if you can use a word in scholarly or legal documents, which don't allow slang.
                >but will hide their heels inside of their shoes
                A shoe having a heel, isn't the same thing as the type of shoe called "high heel". Stop being so disingenuous.
                >if its known i wear mascara its looked down upon
                Just find an emo gf.
                >Look at that whole metrosexual fad
                And it was accepted into the mainstream, long before metrosexual was a thing. It was already socially acceptable, before the word, as there's no reason to invent a new slang term, for something that didn't exist.
                >because men aren't supposed to care about that stuff
                Because it's a stereotype, but it's never been true. Women in Britain used to cheat on their husbands with Norse men, because the Norse men used to have a much higher level of cleanliness. It's speculated to be one of the reasons the British went to war, but I don't know how much proof there is of that, or just an online meme.
                But what are you talking about? Guys absolutely do care about those things, as it's a biological necessity, for mate attraction. If you go to S.Korea guys go to extremes, to look as good as possible, while in the western world, not nearly to that extent. Because guys do want to look good.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                i'm certain that if you were going out with a group of your guy friends and one of them had to finish putting on his makeup, he'd be chastised. if you deny this, you are simply denying social realities.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                no. we accept that society has different social rules for men and women. there's no way you'd argue against that, certainly we get closer to that not being the case, but as it stands there is. that social difference is called gender. whether or not its arbitrary, or dependant on traits can be up to you, but these things do exist socially. Sure, its made up, but that doesn't mean its not a real phenomenon within society. Serious people don't argue that its a self imposed thing humans do, but they also don't argue humans don't do it.
                obviously in contemporary culture war bullshit the whole trans thing has complicated discourse about it, but you are describing gender as you decry it. Language isn't 'real' either by your metric, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have these parameters we can observe.
                I, personally, don't care about gender, and think its a reductive look at this stuff, but you're sort of ignoring the primary areas where its helpful in social studies. if i say someone is handsome, thats a gender term, if i say someone is a b***h, thats a gender term. it might not be real in the sense where it can have a material thing to point to, but its a concept we all understand, and therefor needs to be referred to in some way

                >wasting all this time on deconstructionist nonsense
                You're both midwits

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                noticing social roles is not deconstructionist.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Thinking that everything useful that gets applied to gender are actually misapplied characteristics of sex, and the non-useful parts are pointless towards any meaningful discussion, is a good thing.
                Averages have a use, but they're not that useful.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                its useful, its just too broadly applied, currently.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >pink was for boys and blue was for girls
              Name 10 examples

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                https://www.britannica.com/story/has-pink-always-been-a-girly-color
                https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/
                I don't care to look up 10 examples, but those 2 articles list enough examples, while explaining the history. Dismiss it all you want.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Zip it, troony homosexual.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Skirt = above the knee
              Kilt = below the knee
              fyi

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              those are superficial gender traits cosmetic

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >I care about science all of a sudden when it helps justify my irrational hatreds!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >irrational hatred
            is there a rational hatred? and why do you care if something is "irrational" anyways? use your words big man

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Every significant scientific advancements ever have been made by chuds, most of the time even religious chuds. It's only in the last decade or so that science must be absolutely inclusive, pickle rick'd atheistic and queer, and it's no wonder that it's now focused on genital mutilation for the sake of LGBTQ ideology.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        its not, but its fine if you reject gender as being a valid thing. as long as you reject concepts like "dresses are for girls" or whatever

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Ok, Neil. Biological sex is real, and gender is pseudo-science that should have died in the 20th century.

      Gender just means the social concept. women wearing high heels is a gender thing, not a biological thing. its real in the sense that gender roles are real

      its not, but its fine if you reject gender as being a valid thing. as long as you reject concepts like "dresses are for girls" or whatever

      the word gender has meant the same as sex ("the state of being male or female") for like 600 years. "gender identity" as an idea is a hijack of the word popularised by a pedophile psychologist and has been around for 50 years max, and only mainstream in the past 15.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        As I said, pseudo-science. Good job anon.
        I'm 7455 & 7715.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          "gender" is not pseudo science, so no, not as you said.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's absolutely a pseudo-science. If it's not, what do you call it then?
            There's sex characteristics, and a bunch of nonsense that has no scientific basis.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >what do you call it
              another word for sex.

              official science is pseudo science

              true

              Money did not invent the concept of gender even as an identity, this is a myth. Gender was heavily tied to sex forever, no arguing with that, and as a separate concept is new as a term, but obviously gender roles have existed before they were named. Viking women handled finance. thats not a biological thing, thats a gender thing. just because they didn't have a term for what was going on, doesn't mean its new.

              I said he popularised it, not invented it. he redefined gender identity in relation to a term he did invent, "gender roles".

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            official science is pseudo science

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Money did not invent the concept of gender even as an identity, this is a myth. Gender was heavily tied to sex forever, no arguing with that, and as a separate concept is new as a term, but obviously gender roles have existed before they were named. Viking women handled finance. thats not a biological thing, thats a gender thing. just because they didn't have a term for what was going on, doesn't mean its new.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    THE FLIBBITY FLOBS OF THE WOBKNOB RATIO INDICATE THAT THERE WOULD BE AN UNREALISTIC IMBALANCE IN THE GRUBHUB FREQUENCY THAT IS MOST COMMONLY OBSERVED DURING SHARK WEEK *gropes woman*

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >gets cameo in DUNC
    >shits on DUNC

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Everything about the sandworms violates the square-cube law and basic thermodynamics. Nobody cares.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      what if the worm is like a fungus or something? its always annoying when people like NDT apply real world understanding to shit like this because maybe there's some explanation. Sauropods had air sacs and hollow bones, blue whales live in water. explanations can be made, of course the real explanation is that its a universe where these rules don't apply, but still.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Being from the swamp is the coolest thing ever
    Making mud pies in the stanky hot weather

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    He's moronic, but so is DUNC.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    pls no more le tv science men. sagan, bill nye, and n d tyson are all cringe.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    NDT just uses movies to teach people how things really work, he's not shitting on the works, he just views it as a teaching moment. nothing wrong with it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He's a terrible teacher.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        nah he's fine. he just described how worms and snakes move was different in the movie than real life and explained how they actually move. thats not terrible

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          He's factually correct. But he's also a douchebag and people don't like listening to douchebags. Tyson is constantly trying to prove that he's the smartest guy in the room making everyone else dumb by default. He's a terrible teacher.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            i think he's a terrible teacher for people who are very sensitive about feeling dumb. he's not trying to make you feel dumb, you just are feeling dumb.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Yes, I'm dumb about the subject he's talking about and I would like to know more but the speaker has an unpleasant, condescending way of speaking. He's a terrible teacher. It's probably why he's on tv instead of in class.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                try being less insecure. being on tv vs being in class (he's in class anyways) is because he's popular.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Not liking the way Neil degrasse Tyson speaks doesn't mean I'm insecure. It just means I think he's a dick. And being on a TV show is a step down in the minds of academics.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                he still teaches at princeton dude. he's not a dick, people just get angry when he says why a movie wouldn't really work irl. people here are wayyy more ridiculous and yet you're ok enough to populate this site

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >people here are wayyy more ridiculous
                Cinemaphile has never once questioned how realistic a movie is

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                he's not questioning it either, he said it was good and offered an easy critique to make it more believable. and yes Cinemaphile has, when many criticized the worms having open mouths as the dove into the sand

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >he's not a dick
                He proves you wrong every time he talks in public.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                i just watched the video this whole thread is about, and he's laughing, saying the movie is good, being friendly. there's nothing dickish about what he's doing.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >there's nothing dickish about what he's doing
                He's engaged in conversation with Stephen Colbert.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                oh i forgot he plays for a different team than you so you can't actually watch it or you'll seeth too much. much safer for your mind just to hate on him

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What team? They're both fricking obnoxious and shouldn't be on TV. I am not entertained.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >he still teaches at princeton dude.
                Literal diversity hire, even 105iq Black folk in academia are extremely rare.

                Have you ever seen him debating with another person? Dude's a huge midwit, his only tactic is to drown out others by shouting.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >his only tactic is to drown out others by shouting.
                this doesn't happen

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          He's factually correct. But he's also a douchebag and people don't like listening to douchebags. Tyson is constantly trying to prove that he's the smartest guy in the room making everyone else dumb by default. He's a terrible teacher.

          >He's factually correct
          The worms in the film are fictional. There is nothing factually correct. For all we know they move by shitting out sand like a jet.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He's factually correct in describing the way that worms and snakes move on earth. He's moronic for using that method of movement to criticize a sci-fi story that nobody asked him about.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              he made a suggestion that the worms shouldn't move in a straight line. wow what a horrible thing. this board is full of that shit, of opinions no one asked for. how insanely hypocritical do you have to be to think its moronic to say that, especially for this movie which this whole board is loaded to the absolute brim of moronic thoughts.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >nah he's fine.
          No, he's not. When you're even a decent instructor, you modify your instruction method based on the target audience. Tyson never does, and treats everyone as if they're idiots, which is why he's constantly trying to use film and TV as examples to demonstrate his points.

          He's a narcississtic piece of shit that should stay in his own lane.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            the target audience isn't people being mad at science facts. he doesn't care, nor should he. you're overly sensitive. he doesn't treat people as idiots you just feel like an idiot.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              You're as much of a c**t as he is.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              his target audience is literally r eddit

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He literally pisses people off with his reddit rhetoric, he isn't even a good scientists and a horrible educator.
      At least Kaku while being a hack is funny and someone that was at least somebody in the world of science.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >he isn't even a good scientists
        what are you talking about? you don't know anything about science, you're just mad

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Nice try troony but go look at the papers he has published and what Kaku published then go 40% yourself.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    man they are just bringing back all the unimportant celebrities from 2016 to give us their hot takes. its absolutely crazy they cant create new ones in 2024.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This thread turned really fricking gay and moronic.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's about DUNC, it was already gay and moronic.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >NOOO STOP ACTUALLY DISCUSSING THINGS

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes. No one gives a frick what you think is an acceptable use of the word gender.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          the amount of responses beg to differ

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Anyways, I'm done wasting my Saturday arguing with this moron. Cope and seethe, you will never be a woman.
    Enjoy having the last word, I've explained enough about why you're moronic.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Dunce is shit though. Souless, colourless pile of woke propaganda. Pure american goyslop. Yummy, yummy, gotta get that slop i yer belly!

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I fully agree; there was no scene with Paul kissing himself in the mirror (he could only kiss himself on the lips with a mirror)

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >So, the same people, the Fremen, indigenous sand people, one of the rites of passage is they have to ride the back of the worm. Okay.
    The Fremen aren't indigenous to Dune. How am I supposed to take anything he says seriously if he gets something this basic wrong?
    >But it's a worm just going straight fast. … Have you ever seen a snake chase you as a straight snake? No! They've got to curl and they push off the curl. That's what the curling is.
    Why does he start talking about snakes all of a sudden? They're sand worms not sand snakes. Is he stupid? Worms irl don't """""curl""""" - they expand and contract their segments.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the fremen are indigenous as they were the first ones there. thats how it works. they are just as indigenous as native americans

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >the fremen are indigenous as they were the first ones there. thats how it works.
        ohhh more of the "definitions don't matter when I'm the one talking" game. cool I should try that one out, sounds fun

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >indigenous
          >(of people) inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists.

          better luck next time

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >from before the arrival of colonists.
            The Fremen were colonists. Any "indigenous" population would have to be non-human.
            Are Europeans considered "indigenous" to all the islands they were the first to land on before other humans?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              According to the globalists who dream of endless waves of cheap migrant labor, Europeans aren't even indigenous to Europe and it's racist to claim they are.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Which is an example of the "definitions don't matter when I'm the one talking" game.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >from the earliest times or
              >or

              honestly I'm not the NTA and just saw an opportunity for a cheap jab, I didn't even read the rest of your convesation.
              If we go by how you understand the term though, no human who strayed from Africa could be considered indigenous.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >30,000 years in the future is the earliest times.

                The standard way indigenous is used is the people who were living in a location before they started keeping records, or if not applicable before Europeans arrived.
                Populations living on other planets in the far future would not fit under that definition. They would be colonists.

                Of course new definitions are being invented to deny Europeans the rights of indigenous people such as requiring a population to be or have been under colonial rule by Europeans.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It seems a bit ridiculous to call them colonists when they've been on Arrakis longer than our own recorded history lmao. But I don't think it matters in the end really.

                >deny Europeans the rights of indigenous people
                I'm much more curious about what you mean by this though, do you mean some kind of positive discrimination they don't get access to or something?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_on_the_Rights_of_Indigenous_Peoples
                >It delineates and defines the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples, including their ownership rights to cultural and ceremonial expression, identity, language, employment, health, education, and other issues. Their ownership also extends to the protection of their intellectual and cultural property. The declaration "emphasizes the rights of Indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions, and to pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations." It "prohibits discrimination against indigenous peoples," and it "promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them and their right to remain distinct and to pursue their own visions of economic and social development".

                They then defined "Indigenous" as
                >peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.

                In other words Europeans, and only Europeans, do not have the right to express their identity, claim ownership of their intellectual and cultural property, maintain their own cultural and political institutions, be free from discrimination, have full participation in matters that concern them, or remain distinct as a people.

                You can see this in action anytime browns complain about "Whitewashing" brown characters only to turn around and not only are they fine with brownwashing White characters, they demand it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >legally non-binding resolution

                not the same anon you were talking to btw. Doesn't this mean it's just another white paper government stooges pass around, ie busywork?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              do you understand that indigenous people weren't spawned where they are? they all traveled to where they are

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >they all traveled to where they are
                and for recognized indigenous groups that travel took place before recorded history.

                That's one of the issues with defining "indigenous"
                At one extreme, no one is indigenous except for the first pond of protein goo or the first anatomically modern humans in Africa.
                At the other extreme people born to first generation immigrants are indigenous to the country they were born in or the Europeans who were the first to land on an island are indigenous because they were there first.

                Are Europeans indigenous to the moon?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So the key to being recognized as indigenous is being too stupid to record your own history?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes.
                The people who first settled the islands of what is now New Zealand did so after the construction of Oxford University and are considered indigenous but the people who built Oxford are not.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I disagree. The Maori need to leave, they have no right to the land they're on.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Are Europeans indigenous to the moon?

                no moron, there's no moon culture, there's no one living on the moon developing their own society.
                indigency refers to a culture, referring to the first culture. why do people like you even talk

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Sorry, the answer was Native Americans are indigenous to the moon.
                https://www.npr.org/2024/01/07/1223351685/some-people-are-paying-to-deposit-human-remains-on-the-moon-the-navajo-nation-ob
                You lose 34 social credit score.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Why does he start talking about snakes all of a sudden? They're sand worms not sand snakes. Is he stupid? Worms irl don't """""curl""""" - they expand and contract their segments.
      because he's talking about how massive creatures move. sand worms don't curl either, he's saying they should at least move like snakes so their propulsion makes sense. and worms do move that way anyways, maybe not earthworms, but they don't act like earthworms, do they

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Dune is goyslop

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Do you think women can have penises, yes or no?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      depends how feminine the penis is

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This fricking black idiot

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      no way

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is there anything this fricking Black person doesn't have a problem with?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If reddit homosexual tongue his anus then he doesn't have problem with that. But even redditors are tired of him (he is that bad now).

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    He's right though. Look at earthworms. They have to slowly consume and digest the dirt in front of them, and they do better in softer wet soil. Sand tends to compact under pressure, though it appears to be lightweight on the surface. So it's unreasonable to expect a sandworm to burrow through sand easily just because the surface appears to have little resistance, as greater depths have greater compaction from pressure; it's more difficult for them the further in depth they are, and we know they don't just travel along the surface, they go deep underground and only happen to appear on the surface on occasion. So we can imagine it's very difficult to travel at those depths, and burrowing in a straight line is going through the most resistance at those depths, rather than moving back and forth like a snake where the force is being distributed. Not that the worms don't curve, but to believe they simply tunnel in a straight line ignores the increased weight, mass and pressure of all that, not to mention it becomes even more difficult when a creature like an earthworm is scaled up and now has to deal with far more mass at greater pressure. We could look at the three fourths rule to explain why such a giant worm would be unsuccessful in being so mobile, but that is boring. It's obvious Godzilla works because his legs can support his weight. That's the point. Scientists don't know shit.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sand = Water in the Duneiverse.

      It's a symbolic conceit. In Lynch's version the sand turns into water at the end. "Spiritual energy unbound from it's confined, limited crystalline state"

      Dune is based off an earlier book called The Sabres of Paradise, about Arabian kingdoms in conflict.
      To take the metaphor of Camels being "Ships of the Desert", Herbert just invented "Whales of the Desert" probably because he saw this place back in the day:
      https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Wadi_al_Hitan
      Wādī al-Ḥītān (Arabic: وادي الحيتان, lit. 'Wadi of the Whales' Egyptian Arabic pronunciation: [ˈwa.diː elˈħit.æːn] ) is a paleontological site in the Faiyum Governorate of Egypt, some 150 kilometres (93 mi) south-west of Cairo. It was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site in July 2005 for its hundreds of

      Wal = Valley
      Hitan = Titan or Whale

      When you see the whale skeletons there they look for all the world like creature who swam through sand.

      NDT's job as whatever kind of glowie "de-educator" he is, it to make people "Reddit Literalists" in their thinking and to shy away from intuitive/lateral and symbolic thinking, because that's the language of the elites.

      He's a thoughtcop using Popular Kid methodology to shame "uncool thinkers" among non-elites.

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    who gives a shit?

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    fact: you can only kiss Timothy Chalamet on the penis

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    why does this Black person pretend to be an expert on everything?

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    oh no
    anyway

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >science fiction movie comes out
    >Neil Degrasse Tyson, "Ummm... akchually, that isn't scientifically accurate"
    Imagine hanging out with this guy.

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Atheistbros we must heed prophet Degrasse and denounce Dunc in the name of SCIENCE!
    Trans rights be with you.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *