@parabasis He didn't say it was a review. It's a thing piece about how the national security state is presented, using an autobiography,
-
-
Replying to @parabasis
@parabasis He said, I have not seen the film, but this is how the trailer works.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @parabasis
@parabasis All the reviewers should read the autobiography. It would be a better argument.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nberlat
If you want to make an argument about how the film squares with the book, yes, you should read the book.
@hoodedu@parabasis2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @beyerstein
@Beyerstein@hoodedu@parabasis is the integrity of the trailer really important enough to write about, even on the Internet?3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Profepps
@Profepps@hoodedu@parabasis It's not about the integrity of the trailer. It's about whether you know subtle facts about the movie from it.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @beyerstein
@Beyerstein@Profepps@parabasis But why should I care about subtle facts from a dumb Clint Eastwood movie?3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nberlat
@hoodedu@Profepps@parabasis I care about people knowing what the fuck they're talking about and not wasting my time with idle speculation.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@Beyerstein @hoodedu @parabasis I think you're angrily agreeing with me; why is there a piece about a trailer? Internet = too much opinion.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.