Here comes a parade of strawmen....
You still said Palpatine's history would have made the ESB, not the OT, convoluted. Pretending that the middle-movie in a trilogy would not affect the trilogy. And thus demonstrating a belief that movies in a trilogy do not relate to each other.
More accurately, what I said was that adding the Emperor's backstory to ESB was not necessary to that film's plot. I then clarified multiple times that I'm talking about the
production process of
writers crafting the
narrative of the film.
1) I know you're not an expert on bell hooks. You sat there and were adamant about the fact that feminism was only for females and cited bell hooks. Her book actually says males can be feminist too. I pointed that out to you and it triggered you so hard you've been obsessing on it for 6+ months.
Again, that's not what was said in that thread. I said that feminists get to define feminism. Moreover, and I still can't believe I have to say this, it's completely non-sensical to believe that a male arguing in favor of feminism, somehow believes that feminism is only for females.
2) You were ill-informed into bell hooks until I educated you as detailed above.
You did no such thing, especially not by inventing a phrase hooks never used.
3) It is when you keep bringing up the same thing over again in a desperate bid to reignite the argument. And you made the same mistake about her name. So you have to admit you have poor reading comprehension as well or you're practicing a double-standard.
I can bring up any other time you've made a wildly ridiculous accusation, such as claiming I believe that mixed race people are sad because I said Star Trek used the "tragic mullato" trope. As I said, I claimed no special expertise on hooks, only pointed out that the page I linked, did in fact contain a definition of feminism where you did not. You were the one who went on to claim expertise on hooks work....before going on to misstate her pen name, which is what you attacked me for initially.
Perhaps if my misstating hooks' pen name were a part of a
demonstrable pattern, whereby I continually made such errors, you might have a point about my reading comprehension skills. But I'm not the one who
mistakenly conflated gender/identity and sexual identity and compacted four columns of data into two. I'm not the guy that
posted a study as "proof," wherein the study's own authors flatly warned "this small sample size results in unreliable estimates." And again, I'm not the guy who thinks ESB=ANH/OT.
That's all you, bud.
Then stop trying to counter that point if it's valid.
I'm not trying to counter it. You're trying to make an argument out of everything with me.