The best that men can get..

[Trumptonium1]

Oh, wait, they included that annoying chick from gamergate, who pretends to be a gamer just to lecture men on gaming, and who made a video analyzing butts, while making a video saying that staring at butts is wrong? I'm fairly certain that isn't the best that a man can get.

Loving that people are still mad at Anita Sarkeesian.

Wouldn't call it 'still mad' as much as a natural wretch upon seeing her gob.

[Scomagia]

So what does Star Wars have to do with the topic at hand, aside from the generic screaming about how evil feminists are?

Who died and made you the topic police? If you're genuinely trying to keep the thread on track, which we all know you aren't, there are better ways to do it than snarky shitposting guaranteed to continue the jack.

Just a thought.

[Esternial]

No need for sorry's, it's an important topic for you, I get it.

I don't see the advert as the problem here. It's the behavior from all sides, and no advert could make the impact as the mere existence of an extreme movements on all sides.

It's cringy and probably annoying to some. I get that being reminded about all this bad shit a few men do can feel really alienating to some folks, but the group of people that really agree that "all men are the problem" is still a minority. A loud and obnoxious one, sure.

How I look at it: let's not make it bigger by allowing them to "validate" their crap and draw in a handful of more people each time.

You're missing the point. It's not just the "All men" minority that are the problem. It's the ones who think it's due to masculinity at all that are a problem. Plenty of women rape and abuse men, at comparable rates even, it's not masculinity.

These feminists, even the moderates, are merely articulating their chauvinism and prejudice. It prevents them being of benefit to the conversation, and means they propose ridiculous solutions. It's due to this toxic ideology that male groups and associations are demonized and shut down. It's due to this toxic ideology that we don't view fatherlessness as the root of a lot of this behavior. It's due to the toxic notion that adverts like this one are okay even if you don't think it's "all men" that our society is inundated with negative treatment of men, masculinity, and singling them out.

I don't care about the open and extreme misandrists being "validated.", they will find an excuse to rationalized how they are right no matter what happens.

You're responding to this:

Suppose the media was wall to wall coverage of how black people need to get a grip and stop being criminal and how they need to get with the times and be more like this "Modern" black guy who conforms to white peoples expectations of what a black person should be like with attributes emphasized based on how useful that black person could be to white people.

What would you say about the people who shrugged and said "Well, criminality is a problem, I don't see why you're so angry.", even in the context of them being singled out for this treatment.

You'd say they were racists right?

With;
"But only some of those pundits think it's all black people.".

It doesn't address the problem.

The problem isn't black culture. The problem isn't masculinity.
"Moderate" Racists/sexists who think "It's not all of them, but it's totally their culture/masculinity" are still a problem.

Some facets of masculinity are totally a problem, and in my eyes denouncing the entirety of masculinity does not make you "moderate".

But that's just me. Everything is flawed, everything is falsifiable. Stating masculinity is not (part of) the problem would be a foregone conclusion to make, but doing the opposite is equally flawed, obviously.

To clarify, the focus of my previous point was not to highlight that only a subset think so, but rather that such a harsh reaction to anything that criticises masculinity just allows those people to say "see?".

It feels like people are being forced to "pick a side". Voicing my "on the fence" position leads to miscommunication and hostility on both sides of the fence, and if it just keeps going one will eventually end up on top.

From my perspective, neither side is doing a good job at attracting the goodwill of the moderates. I dislike whatever either side stands for, not per-se because of the content of their views, but how they treat everyone who isn't explicitly on their side. I'm generalizing, of course.

[Costa Fierro]

Forbes on Gillette: they made a mistake

https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlesrta ... -is-toxic/



But hey, it's just Forbes, what do they know?

It's worse than that. As I poined out in the UK thread, this has meant Gillette has made enemies. The MRM is now doing research on Gillette and digging shit up to make the anti-gillette campaign a hydra.

The "Misandry" point will only effect some people, and we're aware of this. Hence why they're also pushing, in appropriate places;

"Did you know Gillette denies the Armenian Genocide?"
And
"Did you know Gillette employs slaves?"

This is after scarcely 24 hours.

God bless /pol/.

[Ostroeuropa]

From my point of view.. I mean it's honestly a harmless video saying man can be better in some respects but within the current context and environment it's clearly setting people off as yet another attack blaming man for all of societies ills. And I can agree with that view as well and think this was at best ill advised in execution, they could of made the point in a better way.

Let's put it this way: imagine if there was an advert directed at women that told them to not be gold diggers, not to cheat, not to be emotionally manipulative and then have that explained away as celebrating good women. There would be a massive outcry.

I don't see why this should be any different.

What say ye wise denizens of NSG?

They pointed a gun at their foot and pulled the trigger multiple times.

No no. The "Good women" would have to display traits that men find useful in them only. That's why they were focused on being less violent/aggressive and looking after kids. There wasn't anything in there that wasn't directly linked to solving a womens issue.

So the message would need to be;
"women that told them to not be gold diggers, not to cheat, not to be emotionally manipulative, not to do X other things, like their current mindset is, and to instead modernize and do things that men find useful."

Notice you didn't get, for instance, men opening books and so on (Literacy problem). You didn't get them telling women "No thankyou" to sex (It's higher than 20%, I can't remember how many, of men have had sex they didn't want because they felt the need to live up to their role.) and so on, and so on.

These feminists, these pretenders at supporting men, they only ever focus on the things that benefit women. Historically their movement broadly speaking hated fathers and wanted them out of the home. Now they're up in arms over a wage gap and suddenly, magically, they want to "Help men" by getting them to take up parenting.

This is a consequence of letting one sex dictate the narrative. Even sincere attempts, assuming they are sincere, will be self-centered, biased, and fucked in the head. It's only when feminists admit they CANNOT fix these issues and need to back off and let the MRM do it that progress will happen.

[Shofercia]

So are you going to show us that video that you claimed exists, where she critically analyzes video games without pandering to feminism? I don't like fakes pretending to be gamers for the sole purpose of spreading their feminist propaganda, and when asked to back up your bullshit with actual sources, you heroically ignored those posts. Sounds rather iffy.

I'm trying to drop the off-topic tangent, so I will try to be brief. Her video series is feminist critical analysis of tropes in video games, as you might guess from the title. They employ, in a pretty basic way, feminist critical theory. If you think that queer critical theory panders to the gays, Marxist critical theory panders to commies, auteur theory panders to artists, and Death of the Author panders to corpses, then sure, her videos all pander to feminists, you win, Sarkeesian defeated at last. We good? We good.

I asked for a source. I don't see a source. I see a goal post shift and more unsourced crap from you. Now you're no longer talking about actual games, but rather about gaming tropes, which are spread all across the genre. A trope is there to either pay homage to an earlier game, or to amuse the public. When Gurney whines about Revan saving a village rather than making money - that's a trope. Analyzing that critically, doesn't add anything to an analysis of KOTOR.

You can pretend that it's off topic here all you like, but Des-Bal actually linked you to a thread where it's on topic, so you don't have that excuse. In that thread, you're welcome to link her video, that you think provides critical analysis, and explain how it does so. Instead of providing actual, and practical examples, you ran back to theory, faster than Trump puts out tweets. So, are you going to provide an actual example of your bullshit claim? Probably not. But you'll pretend it's all good, because that's what you do.

[Ostroeuropa]

You're missing the point. It's not just the "All men" minority that are the problem. It's the ones who think it's due to masculinity at all that are a problem. Plenty of women rape and abuse men, at comparable rates even, it's not masculinity.

These feminists, even the moderates, are merely articulating their chauvinism and prejudice. It prevents them being of benefit to the conversation, and means they propose ridiculous solutions. It's due to this toxic ideology that male groups and associations are demonized and shut down. It's due to this toxic ideology that we don't view fatherlessness as the root of a lot of this behavior. It's due to the toxic notion that adverts like this one are okay even if you don't think it's "all men" that our society is inundated with negative treatment of men, masculinity, and singling them out.

I don't care about the open and extreme misandrists being "validated.", they will find an excuse to rationalized how they are right no matter what happens.

You're responding to this:


With;
"But only some of those pundits think it's all black people.".

It doesn't address the problem.

The problem isn't black culture. The problem isn't masculinity.
"Moderate" Racists/sexists who think "It's not all of them, but it's totally their culture/masculinity" are still a problem.

Some facets of masculinity are totally a problem, and in my eyes denouncing the entirety of masculinity does not make you "moderate".

But that's just me. Everything is flawed, everything is falsifiable. Stating masculinity is not (part of) the problem would be a foregone conclusion to make, but doing the opposite is equally flawed, obviously.

To clarify, the focus of my previous point was not to highlight that only a subset think so, but rather that such a harsh reaction to anything that criticises masculinity just allows those people to say "see?".

It feels like people are being forced to "pick a side". Voicing my "on the fence" position leads to miscommunication and hostility on both sides of the fence, and if it just keeps going one will eventually end up on top.

From my perspective, neither side is doing a good job at attracting the goodwill of the moderates. I dislike whatever either side stands for, not per-se because of the content of their views, but how they treat everyone who isn't explicitly on their side. I'm generalizing, of course.

The MRM narrative is that such "Problem" things are shallow masculinity instead of deep masculinity, caused by a lack of meaningful male connections. That more masculinity is the solution, and that it is a positive thing. The lack of it is what causes these problems.

[Ifreann]

Forbes on Gillette: they made a mistake

https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlesrta ... -is-toxic/



But hey, it's just Forbes, what do they know?

It's worse than that. As I poined out in the UK thread, this has meant Gillette has made enemies. The MRM is now doing research on Gillette and digging shit up to make the anti-gillette campaign a hydra.

The "Misandry" point will only effect some people, and we're aware of this. Hence why they're also pushing, in appropriate places;

"Did you know Gillette denies the Armenian Genocide?"
And
"Did you know Gillette employs slaves?"

This is after scarcely 24 hours.

Sounds like the same thing that happened when Nike signed Kaepernick.

[Costa Fierro]

This is a consequence of letting one sex dictate the narrative. Even sincere attempts, assuming they are sincere, will be self-centered, biased, and fucked in the head. It's only when feminists admit they CANNOT fix these issues and need to back off and let the MRM do it that progress will happen.

Feminists aren't interested in fixing men's issues. Keeping them discriminated against keeps them servile and submissive.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Absolutely. I cheered like a little kid for Rey and Finn. (One of the things I didn't like about Last Jedi, is what they did to Finn.) But what's not to like about the Force Awakens? Except for Han dying, but c'mon, that was going to happen.

It’s plot is a copied version of A New Hope with enough different things that they were able to call it a new movie. Episode 4 was the first one I watched and I knew what was coming. Han Solo’s death was super late and totally unnecessary at that point. Kylo Ren is just an overgrown brat with anger issues and a desire to please a dead guy who regretted his own actions. Dumping a child on a harsh planet to live in poverty is something that only a horrible parent would do and Rey isn’t a very interesting or memorable character. They X-wings are trash compared to the original. The First Order is a bunch of weak and sore losers, but they somehow destroy an entire galactic government with a giant evil death ray that doesn’t even make sense. An the New Republic knew about it. The original Death Star took an entire planetary population of laborers and an insane amount of materials. A few angry people couldn’t possibly kidnap enough children to do that without being stopped. Finn is probably the least flawed as a character. Rouge One was pretty good though.

[His Excellence]

Awful company aside, the ad itself? I don't mind it. When it comes to male blaming I'm quick to tip my MRA fedora, but this time, no, this felt too sincere to me.

When it comes to the call to action, it's all about execution, and whoever directed this wanted to do it right. Do we live in a dystopia where men are awful and set in their ways? Or do we live in reality, where people make mistakes, and can realize it and do better? This ad leans towards the latter, with a healthy does of finger pointing at the garbage media people are fed to get some hand biting in.

[Esternial]

Some facets of masculinity are totally a problem, and in my eyes denouncing the entirety of masculinity does not make you "moderate".

But that's just me. Everything is flawed, everything is falsifiable. Stating masculinity is not (part of) the problem would be a foregone conclusion to make, but doing the opposite is equally flawed, obviously.

To clarify, the focus of my previous point was not to highlight that only a subset think so, but rather that such a harsh reaction to anything that criticises masculinity just allows those people to say "see?".

It feels like people are being forced to "pick a side". Voicing my "on the fence" position leads to miscommunication and hostility on both sides of the fence, and if it just keeps going one will eventually end up on top.

From my perspective, neither side is doing a good job at attracting the goodwill of the moderates. I dislike whatever either side stands for, not per-se because of the content of their views, but how they treat everyone who isn't explicitly on their side. I'm generalizing, of course.

The MRM narrative is that such "Problem" things are shallow masculinity instead of deep masculinity, caused by a lack of meaningful male connections. That more masculinity is the solution, and that it is a positive thing. The lack of it is what causes these problems.

It could be one solution, perhaps. I'm not well-read into the details of "toxic masculinity". I just care about is the rift between the "MRM" and "Feminist" camps, and anyone unfortunate enough to get caught in it.

You could have very valid points and you could be right, but the way it's often presented to me makes me feel like not agreeing makes me an enemy. That's why I don't care for either side's rhetoric all too much.

Which sucks, I guess, because it consciously and subconsciously makes me way less receptive to anything either side has to say. Valid or not.

[Ostroeuropa]

The MRM narrative is that such "Problem" things are shallow masculinity instead of deep masculinity, caused by a lack of meaningful male connections. That more masculinity is the solution, and that it is a positive thing. The lack of it is what causes these problems.

It could be one solution, perhaps. I'm not well-read into the details of "toxic masculinity". I just care about is the rift between the "MRM" and "Feminist" camps, and anyone unfortunate enough to get caught in it.

You could have very valid points and you could be right, but the way it's often presented to me makes me feel like not agreeing makes me an enemy. That's why I don't care for either side's rhetoric all too much.

Which sucks, I guess, because it consciously and subconsciously makes me way less receptive to anything either side has to say. Valid or not.

That's a problem yeah. I think it's more to do with politics in general at this point though, and clickbait media isn't helping. There's also the issue of empathy being lowered across impersonal mediums like the internet which colors rhetoric and even ideas and policy. You wouldn't get people so cavalierly arguing it's fine to say men are trash and kill all men if you made them to it to a hall full of men and women and justify it to them. So they rationalize and create ideological excuses for this behavior then asserted as truth because they're doing it impersonally, and it toxifies everything. The effect of it isn't just a lack of empathy, but that lack of empathy begins coloring the ideological frameworks through this mechanism.

[Des-Bal]

It could be one solution, perhaps. I'm not well-read into the details of "toxic masculinity". I just care about is the rift between the "MRM" and "Feminist" camps, and anyone unfortunate enough to get caught in it.

You could have very valid points and you could be right, but the way it's often presented to me makes me feel like not agreeing makes me an enemy. That's why I don't care for either side's rhetoric all too much.

Which sucks, I guess, because it consciously and subconsciously makes me way less receptive to anything either side has to say. Valid or not.

Similar problem. When you hear something, try your absolute hardest to prove it wrong whether your initial inclination is to agree or disagree.

[Zapato]

Forbes on Gillette: they made a mistake

https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlesrta ... -is-toxic/

Part of the Gillette’s motive for running the ad may be that there is recent research suggesting that millennials give more credit to brands using corporate social responsibility appeals (See Hoffman 2014 and Neilsen 2017). While there appears to be something to this generalization about millennials and CSR appeals, much more needs to be learned about the nuances of what works and what does not. In this case, it appears Gillette will learn a lesson about what not to do as pertains to corporate responsibility efforts.

Reaction to "We Believe in the Best in Men" has been overwhelmingly negative, with comments on its own Youtube channel running negative by an astonishing ten to one margin. There are those who really like the ad really like the campaign a lot and argue that it is simply trying to reinforce positive behavior. However, the much larger group who dislikes it includes many men who are saying the ad is insulting to men and full of stereotypes. What is perhaps most dangerous for Gillette, however, is the large number of posters who are threatening to never buy the product again.

But hey, it's just Forbesthe opinion of Charles Taylor, what do they know?

You had a misunderstanding, so I fixed it for you.

[Galloism]

The MRM narrative is that such "Problem" things are shallow masculinity instead of deep masculinity, caused by a lack of meaningful male connections. That more masculinity is the solution, and that it is a positive thing. The lack of it is what causes these problems.

It could be one solution, perhaps. I'm not well-read into the details of "toxic masculinity". I just care about is the rift between the "MRM" and "Feminist" camps, and anyone unfortunate enough to get caught in it.

You could have very valid points and you could be right, but the way it's often presented to me makes me feel like not agreeing makes me an enemy. That's why I don't care for either side's rhetoric all too much.

Which sucks, I guess, because it consciously and subconsciously makes me way less receptive to anything either side has to say. Valid or not.

Eh, one of the things that's problematic is the notion that it's somehow men's collective responsibility to police other men based solely on genitals. It's not women's responsibility, it's not women and men's collective responsibility, it's men's responsibility to police other men.

This despite the data indicating that men are more likely to be policed for not comforming to gender roles moreso by women than men, although men are secondary enforcers.

Basically, it's like arguing that we should only blame the blue eyed trump voters, and not the brown eyed ones, and if those blue eyed trump voters wouldn't vote Trump then we wouldn't have the problem of Trump.

[Sirocca]

I think it was the timing of the current social context that sets me off rather than the commercial itself. Besides that, I guess it's a more tacit way of hooking themselves on a controversial (and having it's own less pleasant elements) movement that is popular right now. It also reminds me of companies sponsoring LGBT causes only because it's "cool" or it should be in a way that comes off as forced.

Given, I do prefer that companies didn't focus so much on making political statements in general.

[Ostroeuropa]

It could be one solution, perhaps. I'm not well-read into the details of "toxic masculinity". I just care about is the rift between the "MRM" and "Feminist" camps, and anyone unfortunate enough to get caught in it.

You could have very valid points and you could be right, but the way it's often presented to me makes me feel like not agreeing makes me an enemy. That's why I don't care for either side's rhetoric all too much.

Which sucks, I guess, because it consciously and subconsciously makes me way less receptive to anything either side has to say. Valid or not.

Eh, one of the things that's problematic is the notion that it's somehow men's collective responsibility to police other men based solely on genitals. It's not women's responsibility, it's not women and men's collective responsibility, it's men's responsibility to police other men.

This despite the data indicating that men are more likely to be policed for not comforming to gender roles moreso by women than men, although men are secondary enforcers.

Basically, it's like arguing that we should only blame the blue eyed trump voters, and not the brown eyed ones, and if those blue eyed trump voters wouldn't vote Trump then we wouldn't have the problem of Trump.

The analogy fails because women are the primary enforcers of gender roles. So it's victim blaming more than this.
It'd be more like if Democrats spent their time harassing blue eyed people who didn't vote for Republicans, then brown and blue eyed people voted for Trump, and the Democrats said "Well blue eyed people need to shape up. This is your fault, and you need to police eachother.".

No, you need to be policed. You're the problem.

See the studies that show men don't take norm enforcement seriously and don't do it, unless there's women around. But women do it all the time.

[Des-Bal]

Eh, one of the things that's problematic is the notion that it's somehow men's collective responsibility to police other men based solely on genitals. It's not women's responsibility, it's not women and men's collective responsibility, it's men's responsibility to police other men.

This despite the data indicating that men are more likely to be policed for not comforming to gender roles moreso by women than men, although men are secondary enforcers.

Basically, it's like arguing that we should only blame the blue eyed trump voters, and not the brown eyed ones, and if those blue eyed trump voters wouldn't vote Trump then we wouldn't have the problem of Trump.

Or for a thing that happened that Muslims should have to watch out for potential terrorists and if they just did we wouldn't have a problem.

[Sirocca]

Funny how that message only applies when they're saying things that Conservatives find triggering.

Nope. I would say that that about pro-conservative business moves too. Playing (unrelated) politics of any type is bad business. I just haven't encountered many. When your entire goal is to maximise profits, you should avoid pissing off the people who decide whether or not they help you achieve that goal, wherever possible

I don't mind seeing or playing the hero-worship game on the conservative side.
Somebody has to pick either one battle or the other when push comes to shove.

[Shofercia]

It's worse than that. As I poined out in the UK thread, this has meant Gillette has made enemies. The MRM is now doing research on Gillette and digging shit up to make the anti-gillette campaign a hydra.

The "Misandry" point will only effect some people, and we're aware of this. Hence why they're also pushing, in appropriate places;

"Did you know Gillette denies the Armenian Genocide?"
And
"Did you know Gillette employs slaves?"

This is after scarcely 24 hours.

Sounds like the same thing that happened when Nike signed Kaepernick.

You don't work in advertisement, do you? You see, those slogan thingies, kind of important. When Nike signed Kaepernick, they did that thingy where they came out with a new slogan for the campaign, and it wasn't "Just Do It!" It was a slogan critical of how NFL places the bravado of its ownership above all else, including Kaepernick's career. If Nike launched that campaign with the slogan of "Just Do It" i.e. "Just Ignore the US Flag" - I doubt they would've been quite as powerful. Instead, the slogan they used was "Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything."

Gillette went with their own slogan - "the best a man can get" - while showing Anita Sarkeesian, which is mostly definitely not the best that a man can get; I would've recommended Alessandra Ambrosio, but maybe that's just me. Furthermore, Kaepernick highlighted an actual, non-partisan issue - police abuse.

[Ostroeuropa]

Eh, one of the things that's problematic is the notion that it's somehow men's collective responsibility to police other men based solely on genitals. It's not women's responsibility, it's not women and men's collective responsibility, it's men's responsibility to police other men.

This despite the data indicating that men are more likely to be policed for not comforming to gender roles moreso by women than men, although men are secondary enforcers.

Basically, it's like arguing that we should only blame the blue eyed trump voters, and not the brown eyed ones, and if those blue eyed trump voters wouldn't vote Trump then we wouldn't have the problem of Trump.

Or for a thing that happened that Muslims should have to watch out for potential terrorists and if they just did we wouldn't have a problem.

Non-Muslims don't tend to wind Muslims up and demand they commit terrorism or else they're scum and we'll ostracize them, then later blame them for committing terrorism and say they need to focus on eachother and changing eachothers minds.
But no, you're not allowed to form organizations of your own btw, they'd become hot beds of terrorism.

So you've got organized, institutionalized propoganda to make Muslims terrorists, and organized, institutionalized propoganda demanding Muslims police themselves, but Muslims aren't allowed to organize or institutionalize to do that.

It's a complete headfuck only made possible because of the utterly ridiculous ideas feminists believe in that are unhinged from reality and do not describe it, they merely describe the prejudices and chauvinism of the adherents.

It's victim blaming and nothing more, because feminist ideology is nonsense. They should have shown an advert telling women to stop enforcing gender roles and THAT led to the men getting better (Oh, and if it were any good, it wouldn't be "Getting better" purely in ways that benefit women either.) It would actually reflect reality then, instead of the fantasies of a bunch of chauvinistic bigots.

[Galloism]

Eh, one of the things that's problematic is the notion that it's somehow men's collective responsibility to police other men based solely on genitals. It's not women's responsibility, it's not women and men's collective responsibility, it's men's responsibility to police other men.

This despite the data indicating that men are more likely to be policed for not comforming to gender roles moreso by women than men, although men are secondary enforcers.

Basically, it's like arguing that we should only blame the blue eyed trump voters, and not the brown eyed ones, and if those blue eyed trump voters wouldn't vote Trump then we wouldn't have the problem of Trump.

Or for a thing that happened that Muslims should have to watch out for potential terrorists and if they just did we wouldn't have a problem.

Oh yes. Also culturally relevant example.

I shall bow out to your superior choice.

[Sirocca]

Preachy ad is preachy. Easily offended conservatives are easily offended.

Yeah, well I'd rather have conservatives be offended than those on the progressive side today.

[Shofercia]

Absolutely. I cheered like a little kid for Rey and Finn. (One of the things I didn't like about Last Jedi, is what they did to Finn.) But what's not to like about the Force Awakens? Except for Han dying, but c'mon, that was going to happen.

It’s plot is a copied version of A New Hope with enough different things that they were able to call it a new movie. Episode 4 was the first one I watched and I knew what was coming. Han Solo’s death was super late and totally unnecessary at that point. Kylo Ren is just an overgrown brat with anger issues and a desire to please a dead guy who regretted his own actions. Dumping a child on a harsh planet to live in poverty is something that only a horrible parent would do and Rey isn’t a very interesting or memorable character. They X-wings are trash compared to the original. The First Order is a bunch of weak and sore losers, but they somehow destroy an entire galactic government with a giant evil death ray that doesn’t even make sense. An the New Republic knew about it. The original Death Star took an entire planetary population of laborers and an insane amount of materials. A few angry people couldn’t possibly kidnap enough children to do that without being stopped. Finn is probably the least flawed as a character. Rouge One was pretty good though.

A summary of Rogue One: she dies, he dies, everyone dies! The main character is a chick who is so rebellious, that she does everything her daddy tells her to do. That's some real rebelling! The plot is "people trying to steal a thing to develop plans to destroy another thing, that doesn't' quite exist yet" - a brilliant plot. Where the Bothans at? Instead of telling his daughter to target the hole, the father recommends a suicidal mission, where the daughter finds out that she should indeed target the hole, and dies shortly after. In addition to their aim, the storm troopers demonstrate their fighting inability. And the most human character, is a robot.

Yes, Episode VII copied Episode IV. Kylo Ren is a troubled, super powerful child, kidnapped by a dark emperor, hmm, there's a parallel to Vader, whom he admires so much, or is it Snoke, forcing him to admire Vader? The First Order has iron discipline, which gives them the ability to build that. They also built it over time. And it's not Rey's fault that she was dumped in the middle of nowhere, as she's still an awesome character. As is Finn.