TheRightToArmBears said:
I do disagree a fair bit with Bob but I'm not entirely sure this is fair. I was one of the people that was a bit pissed about the whole Expendables thing, but that was a while ago and it's not something he's done again. I'm not sure 'The Nineties Sucked' was something he even needed to apologise for, but I think his response was fairly good. I'd rather he did what he did- explain his position, which was understandable when fully explained, than just get a 'sorry'. Again, the Django thing, I'm not really sure why he should apologise for anything there. He merely stated his opinion, didn't bash the opposition (called Spike Lee's viewpoint 'understandable').
I wasn't all that annoyed about the Expendables thing, but the 90's thing always grated with me (Although most of his recurring bits do. "X is weird" always pisses me off, and I usually hit mute until the graphic disappears. Forced meme is forced.) The annoying thing was, he cited academic works which were roundly criticised, and partially retracted by their authors, and speaks to lazy research on Bob's part, and his discussion of geopolitics was flagrantly wrong, especially on a global level, but even when restricted to America, and he completely ignored the cultural events, which is supposedly what he was talking about, and used a poor comparison to give different decades stupid labels based on innacurate stereotypes, and then arbitrarily (Even though it could easily be given one by even his undetailed discussion [My pick would be "Dissatisfaction" "Misdirected Rage" "Angst" "Ennui"]) decided that the 90's had none. It didn't feel so much an explanation of his viewpoint, I felt, as an attempt to justify a position which he also said was sarcastic (Which is straight up disingenuous. "I'm totally justified in making this point, but if you're still annoyed, it's only a joke and sarcasm, and tongue in cheek") which is like the "lololol, I'm trolling" defense on a level of rigor.
I don't think he should apologise for the Django thing. I don't think there's anything wrong with it. My point was that he misrepresented Lee's criticism. He was very respectful towards Lee, and very polite, but he also missed the point. Whether you agree with Lee or not (And I don't really agree with him in particular, in fact, my position with regards to his sentiment is probably close to Bob's), Bob's response didn't really take into account the crux of Lee's sentiment, and too often went into a fanboy character defense of how "fiercely intelligent" Tarantino is. Which is completely detached from whether a work could have negative racial connotations.
The other two examples that slipped my mind were the Torture in the Zero-Dark Thirty bit, which again, he misrepresented the criticism (And titled a piece which had numerous errors "Tortured Logic", which is kind of adorable), and ignored the bipartisan statements as to the innacuracy of the film, to further his personal narrative of the film as an objective documentary-esque piece, decides that the criticism by the CIA must be lying because of course they lie, and Hollywood
never lies or exagerates. And the fact that if the CIA is lying, then where the film got their information for a factually accurate account from a coverup completely escapes him. Al-Jezeera covered both sides of that issue better than he did. Including a detailed discussion of how the CIA could continue with torture, rather than just substanceless snark, where they did actual research, and referenced the specific policies as to what could be allowed. But it also takes into consideration the massive senatorial review of over 6-million pages of internal CIA documents, http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=abcf714a-38fa-4c49-8abe-e06eed51e364 These things should be basic to a journalistic discussion. But as Bob calls the journalists out for "Playing at film critics" he should be called out for "Playing at Journalist".
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/12/2012122582454397168.html http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/01/20131191566253143.html
And the belittling involved in the Mass Effect ending debacle, in which, again, he mixed valid points, with generalisations and insults to large groups of people with distinct opinions and criticisms, which he roundly condescended.
My point is, he doesn't really interact with other points of view that well, and rarely seems to give them a fair discussion. That said, I usually agree with him, and he's usually very entertaining.