>>63994869
>the points made in the first video
I don't give a fuck what cunts on youtube are doing. If you lack the ability to make a proper argument stand on its own merits and merely parrot youtubers, then your opinion is irrelevant.

>its association with children
I see you/they are already resorting to >muh chilluns
>because the movie leaves out the context
>So we made up our own context where instead of the perfectly reasonable explanation the book had, we come up with one convenient to our preconceived notions of da ebul nahtzees
>How do we know? Because he put Neil Patrick Harris in an SS uniform! Peak political satire!

>the movie government... shit at its job
Then I suppose that rather than "War is hell"; you'd say that people dying in Saving Private Ryan is also political satire meant to portray the allies as incompetent?
You seem to misunderstand the crux of this conversation. Nobody is denying that Verhoeven TRIED to make satire. We're saying he was a hack and failed at it. He didn't satirize fascism because the picture he painted was not one of fascism. He sure as fuck didn't satirize the book, considering he didn't get more than a couple fucking chapters into it.

>incorrectly too
The issue of redditspacing became relevant precisely because of tourists in that time period. Look at you putting another linebreak under (You)s despite the fact that it's unnecessary. You can even compare your own posts to others in this thread and see that nobody but tourists like you do it.

>No, you see, it's astroturfing by /pol/ that makes you lack any respect for a shithole filled with bootlickers where dissent is silenced and publicity of a post is determined by upvotes
>Your presence on a site known for its anonymity, where posts are to be judged by their content rather than the identity of the poster or the opinions of the masses is merely coincidental
Statements by the utterly deranged