How do I stop with being too political to where it drives away my normie friends?
I asked a female friend abot if she liked the capt marvel movie. she thought it was weird that only this movie is the one that was asked If she liked it. she pointed out stuff like sansa from GoT and how nerds want it rewritten or some shit. I told her why but it went long and I just couldnt seem to stop myself from saying
>yeah I didnt like Capt Marvel for its use of so many strawmen caricatures of white guys.
Then I would go on and then I see when men did it too, Like in shield Hero with a female villain who was a liar and frames the MC for rape.
So I kept going but I cant seem to stop this. Or make it sweet and short. What do?

Attached: 1558463144743.png (277x182, 35K)

Its like I need to say whats on my mind so much and I cant shorten it or just not say anything at all.

Just be yourself man

I am not trying to impress some one or get laid, I mean I am trying to stop being mister ACKHTUALLY
here. it annoys a lot of people.

>Jow Forumstard meets reality
There is no easy solution beyond unfucking your brain.

this isnt pol shit bro, its fact. And I see it from both sides but that subject isnt the issue here.

Obviously it is. People usually don't mind if you sperg out going over the top into details, if they have some basic interest in a topic (as the chick clearly does), and you have something insightful to add (which is clearly not the case).

No my point is going into long texts explaining shit, basically not being able to make it short and sweet. Thats what my problem here. I on the other subject I stand by my point that both sides use straw man caricatures that show only 1 side of things and keeps hammering it into the viewers skull.

I mean, in the opener you got...
>How do I stop with being too political to where it drives away my normie friends?

It's like you have enough awareness to see the real problem but lack the integrity to fully accept it and hence switch to:
>going into long texts explaining shit, basically not being able to make it short and sweet
What exactly is the issue if it's a wall of text? Media criticism is a complex topic, you literally can't do a short and sweet version that is worth the words it takes. Faggots fill books after books talking about my boy Willy for centuries and still find things to add.

At the very best you could focus on singular examples, so be picky and find one that represents the main point you want to make. Add some internal rules, like 3 examples. Ideally do some practice in your head or even write it out. Communication is skill like any other, the more often you do it, the better you get at it. And then when you want to go on a sperg spree, remind yourself that you made your point and chill out. Self control is a skill one can practice too.

ok, can you give me some examples of such rules? I dont know where or how to start with that.

Obviously, you need to when to bring up the politics. Like whenever just think "Is politics really necessary to the conversation?" That's how I do it most of the times

My biggest problem is that I always go straight to the negative if I didnt enjoy something. I lack tact and it bugs me that I am too direct. I think its because I have a lack in patients.

A lot depends on how YOU weight the arguments and what YOU consider as the strongest supporting points ... which can vary depending on the values of the person you talk to too. (the fallacy pic on Jow Forums is unironically good to rate the strength of supporting points, just gotta keep the subjectivity in mind)

Let's say you want to argue that Eminem isn't homophobic; to limit the size of the topic, decide on a number of points you want to present before you do it, if there is something else you'd remembered in the process, too bad, skip it once you reached the planned number.

As for the points, you could use: "1 - but he has a gay friend", "2 - but he spoke out for gay marriage", "3 - but gay artists say he ain't" or "4 - but he makes fun of everyone equally". While the latter is one of the better arguments, it'd might require a lot extra examples that would blow the shit out of proportion. So you'd have to decide whether stop it at that, expand a bit (and deciding what's "a bit" or just use all 4 to build a rough case. BUT, if you happen to know that the person you talk to is into appeals to authority, just rolling with 3 would be the most efficient way ... unless the person loves the gay friend, then 1 might be a stronger point for them.

You can use the engagement level of the other person is a solid guide of how deep to go. And most importantly, keep in mind that the entire point of the stuff is to share perspectives, not forcing your opinions on others or winning debates. Every time you want to sperg out, remind your brain that you probably accomplished the "sharing perspectives" part already.

In the end practice is the only way to internalise the process and learning when to shut up, and generally summing things up is one of the hardest bits to do. To keep it less heated, find some topic you don't give a shit about (the death of small smartphones), play devils advocate with yourself ... or find some phisolophyfag buddy.

For that there is simply the "start with 3 positive things before going for 3 negatives" - "rule".
And it's pretty fun to look for positives in stuff you generally dislike, give it a try.

I dont like bullies
1 they pick on the weak
2 they lie cheat and steal
3 they get away with bad stuff sometimes
1 they make kids toughen up
2 you have someone dumber than you
3 your life is probably better than theirs

is that how it works?

Yeah, sounds like a start.

With media it tends to be even easier due the visual element "I like how Sansas outfits represent her journey" or something.

I dont have much of a problem with sansa and the ice king thing. I dont know the full context other than the killing.
So it doesnt bug me.
Lets go with Captain marvel movie
I dont like cuz
1) uses strawmen
2)carol is an edgy bitch
3)her flash backs were shallow and pedantic

things I like
1) I like samuel jackson
2)skrulls were funny and goofy
3)nice visuals at the end

>1) uses strawmen
That one is pretty vague. "characters X, Y and Z felt like strawmen" would do the job better. Even if you think that they all were, picking examples is a lot more helpful.

ok the white males who showed up in the movie aside from Coulson were strawmen

I mean, it's more precise and somewhat works with the rest of the points ... but could be more detailed IMO.

Were there even relevant white males beyond the mentor guy and the skrull agent?

only ones that deemed worth for a couple of seconds of screen time. Like her dad yelling at her for driving a go cart and crashing, a kid saying get off the track, the dude with a motorcycle she stole. I mean minor stuff that happened to make a big enough impact for a response. It seemed like little things that we guys just roll off our back people like carol overreact to it.

Ah, it makes sense now. Mostly forgot about the shit. Why not pack it as: "white male side characters were mostly used as strawmen, like her dad yelling at her for driving a go cart and crashing." or maybe even a longer version with all 3 examples.

because it too long and its obnoxious imo

The brief version lacks something to hold on though. It can work if the other person recognises a hint of what you meant or could mean but if not, it's not too helpful.

I mean, take 2 "carol is an edgy bitch" it's not an overly strong point either but "edgy bitch" gives the person something definite to search for. While "strawmen" is an even more vague term that is overused by basically everyone so much, it barely has any meaning.

How about "most white males were portrayed as hostile or dumb", way more clarity.