Do writers really think people talk like this?

I don't know if you're tying to make this a political thing or whatever but I don't know what you mean by that

Writers confuse meaningless exchange of information with inventiveness
Tarantino

Attached: americanpariahs.jpg (1200x630, 135.53K)

People with generational wealth genuinely speak like this. Turns out, having nothing to struggle or fight for leaves them with no identity or self-image, so they need to craft a personality based on fake academic pursuits. Mind, if you probe them even on a superficial level about their ideology they completely fall apart. I was just on a date with a dumb zoomer whore who lives off daddy's money who tried to tell me the Opium War was a concerted effort to exert whiteness on the Chinese, demoralize them, and eventually colonize them. Not only is this an insulting read on what was one of the most advanced civilizations in the world, it's a complete misinterpretation of what was essentially a basic trade dispute. I'm sure you can imagine what her response was to me arguing this: nothing. This is how they all are, particularly the white women. It's all a facade for the sake of the empty-headed upper class. The only thing that I think confuses people in the long run is that poor niggers get suckered into following this too.

> Tarantino
Tarantula's mainstream postmodernism, although nihilistic, isn't hollow, it's playful and self-aware in the sense that it knows its true purpose - to entertain the consumer. Whedon's postmodernism is like PTA's - the nihilistic hollow is filled with vanity, self-indulgence and narcissistic charms; instead of entertaining the consumer it entertains the author and dimwits whose idea of watching cinema is imagining themselves in the author's place.

You cracked it, the guys who made a show about a hot blond cheerleader and a movie about the porn industry respectively have no interest in entertaining anybody, clearly.

The limit of human recursive cognition on display: the dimwit who imagines himself as the author isn't able to see himself imagining himself as the author, even when pointed to.

Yes people had Sarah Michelle Gellar posters on their wall because they were subconsciously masturbating to the idea of writing a television you fucking retard.

To the idea of sharing a smile directly with the author, correct.

What place is the world more like instead of California?

You're so far up your own ass you just compared Whedon to PTA.

Mexico

So your iconoclastic critical theory is that the 90s WB audience found nothing entertaining or attractive about a character called Buffy the Vampire Slayer played by a hot blonde and the thousands of teenage boys and girls that had the characters of the show plastered on their walls were secretly pining for intellectual superiority instead of using them as a lighting rod for their rampant hormones. Genius! Bravo!

Yes I did. Whedon's vices are PTA's vices, the difference is the depth at which they are buried, Whedon's lay under thick limitations of his genre, PTA's are easily exposed by continuous ego-gazing of intelligentsia art.

I get it. You don't like PTA. That still doesn't make him some kind of nihilistic black hole. His films come from a sincere place.