No, you don't get it, sweetpea.

It is more than a metaphor. It is real, it is a psychological truth that grows deeper as she talks.

It's all good though. If it isn't for you, it isn't for you.

I thought what she had to say was interesting, and I would've been fine with just her sitting on the stool talking. I'm not 100% sure I understand the point of the disrobing--I mean, I get it from a metaphorical standpoint, but from an actual point of view, it doesn't seem to accomplish much.

Why yes it certainly does seem like hyperbole when you fail to read everything I said. I also said this "You do not get that kind of money without the help of others, exploiting others, doing illegal shit, or basically being a fucking thief." Bodies of course being hyperbolic (sometimes, not in the case of Oil Barons) and also metaphorical.

I don't think I have to address Zuckerbergs thievery it's pretty well documented that he had to pay people off to avoid lengthy court cases. It's pretty obvious he isn't Self Made in any way.

Bill Gates well a lot of people have plenty of stories about him stealing things and doing shit that's very sketchy but how about we ignore that. Let's go to the fact that he developed (stole) programs to run on something that was made from public funds by the military. Computers are completely anti-free market, they come from and were created by massive intervention in the market.

If you use a computer and the internet you're basically supporting socialism and betraying the free market.

Hmm...face thief is time or the loss of memory. The woman is trying to ensure the man can remember her face, her personhood, their shared memories, their past. Maybe the face thief is HIS act of forgetting. Almost like the animation serves as a metaphor for, what, Alzheimer or something? But he finally remembers at the end.

I'd give it 3/5

This video is like a metaphor for my life.

That is the most cringe-worthy metaphor, ever.

Zack Schnyder and Goyer are worse than Michael Bay.
At least Bay didn't make Superman into a violent murderer.

It's kind of a metaphor for what APAC wants America to be.
A killer dog kept on a tight leash

(and Sucker Punch is about empowerment ??!! AH hahahaha)

Your perfect-world news-report fantasy works fine in theory, does it?..'peer reviewed' till the cattle are housed in mandatory temporary-to-permanent dirt-floor & barbed-wire accommodations CE??....Maybe your own verbal ticks will develop into a similar, "well, very specifically" when you are NOT being arrested lawfully and tossed into an asylum where a company doctor can render you insane, deprogram you, and use you as an 'example' of what one can or can't say on Facebook?

Forest-for-the-trees lackeys are a dime-a-dozen at a peer-reviewed fantasy camp on the outskirts of (insert city or town near you in the future you've helped to create).

You are already on planet police-state, keep up the fine work and pour-through those tomes of toilet paper and perhaps hone your own 'axe' (a fucking metaphor for reason or wisdom, the kind that cuts both ways....HELLO?!)

How bout an interview?

After typing lots of stuff, I realized the rabbit hole would have no end so I'll leave it unsaid, but making this video was an amazingly brave and worthwhile decision on her part as I see it.

Some of it did seem a little too lean a little too much toward "positive experience" which may be necessary for balance I suppose, but nor do I see it as negative. She paid the parking ticket rather than having her life impounded, which is fine and proper and right for her when it came to that, but it's better to put money in the meter and avoid the ticket. Good lord, that's a terrible analogy... or metaphor... or whatever it is.

Sometimes, I have too many opinions. Anyways, I think Emily Letts is a little bit of a hero regardless.

Firstly i'd like to say that it's clear to me you're not interested in discussing this, but rather somehow interested in some sort of conflict. I'm not, and i spent a good while thinking about my post before making it; your suggestion that i didn't read your post is soundly rejected. Possibly you didn't read or acknowledge the content of your own post because you have forced yourself into a position where all i have to do is show one single example of something being funny at the expense of no one or nothing to prove you wrong and now you have to be rude (the first sign you know your position is indefensible) and provide little to no justification of any of your numbered points (because you know they are weak).

I'll be honest, i'm not going to entertain suggestions that a joke can be at the expense of an inanimate object or fictional character. Between that and your distinctly shoddy arguments I think you're trolling.

A joke at the expense of a stick? At the expense of a fictional character? ET is not something or someone. It doesn't exist, it is a construct of our imagination and does not have physical form. It isn't even a "thing" (if i say that unicorns are arrogant bastards, does that make me xenophobic? They don't exist, but if ET can suffer jocular expense, unicorns can suffer expense at my comment also. I hate martians too, they're all short, ugly, grey bastards. Am i a racist now?). The zebra thing isn't actually a riddle - it pretends to be a riddle and ends up being silly; i can't understand your reasoning on this and you didn't explain it (no surprises there, your post is full of holes).

When you tell someone a joke, you are entering into a contract by which both people know that word play or trickery is going to be involved. By taking part in the joke, you are voluntarily allowing yourself to be misled so that a juxtaposition of ideas in your head makes you laugh. You aren't laughing at the expense of yourself. In the same way as reading a book or watching a film - you are not being lied to, you are not being tricked, you are a willing participant. When a magician performs a trick for you, you are suspending your disbelief and participating in a flight of fancy for entertainment purposes. Magic isn't shadenfreude either - no one suffers expense, they both enjoy and know that skilful subterfuge has taken place - though i'm sure you'll argue the contrary before you admit you've over committed to your point.

If a clown puts on an act for you and you laugh when his trousers fall down, you aren't laughing at the expense of the clown because he did it intentionally to make you laugh, he did not suffer expense. You are not laughing at the expense of yourself because you know that what he is doing is an act, you did not suffer expense (except for the ticket price, badum tish - there's another 'joke' at the expense of nothing/no one).

What you've tried to do is supply the definition of "joke" or "humour" such that the definition involves the word "trick" in a negative context and thus lead to shadenfreude. Not everyone thinks the same way as you do, which is what i tried to explain to you earlier; if you want to say "to me, everything is shadenfreude - i laugh only ever at the expense of something/someone" then i say fair enough, but that is not what you initially said.

So if/when you first heard the stick joke, you laughed AT the stick? The ET joke, you laughed AT ET? You laughed AT the mathemetician? I don't believe you, but regardless that isn't the point you made; many if not most other people are not laughing at ET or the stick, they are laughing at the juxtaposition of ideas. And therefore comedy/humour (not your very specific definition of it, which is irrelevant to our debate) is not ALWAYS at the expense of others, even if i accept that something that doesn't exist/is inanimate can suffer an emotional expense.

And finally, i don't understand the metaphorical suggestion that i shunned your need for air, when actually i spent a good 20 minutes providing you with air only to have you turn round and say "that's not air, it's nitrogen and oxygen with trace amounts of other gases!" and pull a trollface before passing out. Don't worry though, i'll drag you back to shore and make sure you're ok (this post).

1. Monarchies historically existed.
2. Contested thrones and succession wars really happened
3. We built a wall in Germany, and a metaphorical Iron Curtain.
4. Polytheistic beliefs really were in tension with monotheistic ones
0. Natalie Dormer played Anne Boleyn
5. People used to fight with swords.

But of course, the genre - Fantasy - is practically defined by being set in a period analogous to a mashup of 800-1500 CE with the twist that some of the ideas of the time are actually true (gods, demons, magic, fantastic animals etc).

Christians " take it in the TEETH, time and time again " so one day there will be no teeth left and smarter dicks fuck of your oral cavity will be all the easier.



A lot of hidden and metaphorical meanings there.

This video is a metaphor for what they will do. They will unwound us out then put us back together, but we will never truly be the same

What I like is the subtle metaphor for the "Great War".

Yeah the media is just a big monster that needs more and more food daily. Lantern may have personal issues with it, but I don't care about his personal issues or biases until it actually hurts someone. I think people should be allowed to be as racist or bigoted as they wish as long as they leave others alone. They'll all eventually die off and if enough gay people are nice to their kids it'll all turn out fine.

He seems to be safely corralled inside his own mind and mostly harmless save for the grass of regurgitated thought that covers his paddock...ok I went too far with this metaphor.

You're right though it's a matter of what is the target of derision, which in my thinking the proper target is the media.