1209
submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/politics

“Christians today have become the most vitriolic tribe,” said Ritchson, who himself identifies as a follower of Jesus. “It is so antithetical to what Jesus was calling us to be and to do.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] solomon42069 81 points 2 months ago

If right wingers can watch two seasons of Reacher and be fans until this moment then they're just too dumb for life.

Literally both seasons baddies were stereotypical right wing criminals.

[-] [email protected] 41 points 2 months ago

You don't end up in the right wing thanks to your political awareness

[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

or intelligence, or thoughtfullness

[-] ours 29 points 2 months ago

But they are so happy the show is "anti-woke" with its lead being a yoked-up hobo manly Mary Sue male fantasy.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy it for the light entertainment but I find it hilarious that conservatives get mad when a slender woman beats up a whole bunch of strong men but find it perfectly normal for a guy who never works out, eats exclusively fast food to have a bodybuilder's body, be more or less unbeatable, get the ladies and know all the things he needs.

[-] tym 28 points 2 months ago

damn - you just connected some obvious dots for me. The reacher character is their gravy seals fantasy personified.

[-] ours 23 points 2 months ago

He's the ultimate "lone wolf"/"alpha male". Zero attachments, no daily grind, on the road, yoked, badass, solves all the cases, never afraid, no fucks given, plays by his own rules.

I find it highly entertaining but he's as realistic as the Black Widow character from Marvel. Lee Childs was in talks to write James Bond books and when the deal fell through, he made his own ultra-macho superhero fantasy.

Ritchson should totally play the lead in a Wolfenstein adaptation. Have him smash Nazis and make closet-Nazi conservatives angry.

[-] Dozzi92 7 points 2 months ago

Yes, of all the books of that ilk, Reacher just never resonated with me, and I feel like you may have helped me come to realize why. Jack Ryan (amongst others in Clancy books), Mitch Rapp, they all kind of gave a background on how the character got there, and even took time to show them training in some fashion. Jack Reacher just did.

They're all smut for men though. And that's okay.

[-] ours 2 points 2 months ago

Yes, simple fantasy/escapism is fine for entertainment. Speaking of Jack Ryan, the current TV series pretty much turned him into a Mary Sue character but very seriously and drily.

I do savor the irony of conservatives preaching Reacher as their "anti-woke" hero while crying when a fantasy features people not fitting their archetype doing the same things (notably women).

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Ive read two reacher books and they're fucking hysterical. I cant believe how god damned dumb they are (first one was a gift from a client and I felt obliged to read it. second my wife got me as a joke).

Two bad dudes, thick as oak trees squared up to me. Bad choice. One made a move to see if I'd flinch. I didn't. His friend's eyelid flickered just a tiny but when his fake-out plan failed. Fear. I span around and swept my leg through both of their legs. All four of their kneecaps exploded into red mist and sent pressure shockwaves up their vascular systems with enough force to blow their eyeballs out of their sockets. Four peach pit sized occular orbs with red ribbons arced across the parking lot. Your move. Checkmate. I went back inside the bar and finished my beer looking like I'd been airbrushed with crimson. The beer was warm.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Lol. Is that an actual quote? It is hilariously bad. Reminds me of the Remo pulp fiction series I used to read as a kid when there was nothing else to read. That was even more over the top, but by much less than I would've thought from watching the Tom Cruise Jack Reacher movie. Might have to read one just for shits and giggles.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

its not, I was riffing, its not that exaggerated but its like that.

Its like: Two guys square up to me. Big mistake. I swing wide with a right hand hay maker and he crumples like wet newspaper. His friend steps back. Too late. I gave him his chance. My fist fire out and collapse his solar plexus. He's gasping for air as I stand over him. "Whos's paying Franly to follow me?", I demand. etc etc

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Too bad. I would've enjoyed reading your version of it. 😆

[-] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago

But the hero also engages in vigilante behavior in order to get the bad guys, and they're all for that, so I can see the confusion.

Almost nothing Reacher does is laudable in real life, no more than Bauer in 24. It would be a poor morality play...if that's what you thought it was.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

You've never booted a bumper to set off an airbag?

How do you say hello?

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Well, there's a neighborhood handshake where I live. It starts with a knife and ends in the other person's guts, so I guess there's that. 🤷‍♂️

[-] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago

I'm surprised they didn't realize he wasn't right wing, when neither season baddie was a migrant caravan.

[-] SpiceDealer 7 points 2 months ago

Their ilk aren't receptive to subtlety. Everything has to spelled out for them like little children.

this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
1209 points (98.6% liked)

politics

17968 readers
2856 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS