What a shock: Hollywood pushing back at "The Sniper"

This person spends the whole article referencing naive sheep, while treating the readers like naive sheep. A bunch of condescending nonsense. And I know condescending nonsense!

 

So the movie glosses over the civilian casualties? Color me shocked.

 

And most soldiers (and Americans) likely would rather believe that we were there to fight terrorism than the actual reason we were there. In fact, we were told that, even if we realized down the road that it wasn't true.

 

Until death do you part.

And you. And you. And ...

DN!

 

It referenced sheep because the movie uses the motif.

How does the article treat readers like sheep? It's a critique.

 

This is absurd. Because a handful of racists tweet about it, it's fueling this idea? I need to see the movie before I comment much more. If it's really implying some of the things this article says, that's disappointing. But that's also Hollywood for you.

 

I already answered that question.

 

No you didn't. Not that you have to. But you didn't.

 

I think he means this ...

 

Boston Globe guy kind of played off my "hungry" theme.

Many fans and foes miss the point of Clint Eastwood’s ‘American Sniper’: Ty Burr - Movies - The Boston Globe

 

While I think that article goes a little overboard with the rhetoric, she's right to a certain extent that most Americans don't understand the true toll of war, even a virtuous one.

There's no other way to explain the widespread ignorance of PTSD or the alarming rise of military suicide. Those are huge problems that would be addressed much better if more people had a better understanding of things.

 

What's the controversy again?

I still don't know what the fucking controversy is here, and I've been asking for 24 hours.