SecondUser2500

@GamingAndPandas "PLEASE, MARK. I'LL DO ANYTHING! I'LL FUCKING SUCK YOUR DICK! YOU WANT ME TO EAT SHIT? I'LL EAT YOUR FUCKING SHIT ON VILTRUM IN FRONT OF GRAND REGENT THRAGG!"

"PLEASE HARRY I'LL DO ANYTHING! I'LL FUCKING SUCK YOUR DICK! YOU WANT ME TO EAT YOUR SHIT? I'LL EAT YOUR FUCKING SHIT ON THE HOGWARTS FRONT LAWN!"

I think if there's one thing everyone can take away from "The Boys", it's Anthony Starr's Homelander. I genuinely put this performance over the last 7 years on the same level as Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark and Heath Ledger's Joker. I can't imagine anyone else playing this role as masterfully as he did. Hopefully, he gets some mainstream recognition because most of the love seems to just come from the fans.

I thought it was a fitting end for Homelander to go out like this. He was always a bully and never had to train. He just had all the powers necessary to kill everyone else. Once they were gone, he became a crybaby when fighting a war veteran. He's a terrifying villain, but not in the same way as characters like Thanos or Thragg. Those are genuinely intelligent soldiers with millennia of fighting experience who are much calmer and more reasonable. They have real aura. Homelander is nothing more than an unhinged bully. He never had much aura in the first place; he was just evil and mean-spirited. Even Thanos showed respect to Tony Stark before attempting to kill him; Homelander was a complete maniac who didn't care about anyone but himself. The only reason he appeared confident in the previous seasons was because he knew no one posed a threat to him. Once that was gone, he was nothing more than a pathetic loser.

This is going down as the biggest aura loss in TV history

Wait, when did this happen? I don't recall ever even tweeting at this dude.

No. It just depends on how it's used. I agree that not every character should be like this, else fiction would get boring and predictable. There should be diverse themes about the morals of killing. However, that doesn't mean that a character having a "no kill" rule is inherently a bad thing. In fact, Batman has some of the most compelling stories in all of fiction because of this trope. The Netflix Daredevil show was also incredible partly because of Matt Murdock's moral dilemma about killing Wilson Fisk. It all comes down to execution.

can we all agree that this is the worst trope in fiction history

To be fair, the context is removed here. He's begging for his life and telling Butcher he'll do anything. I thought it was a good way for his character to go out in his final scene: a sad, pathetic, whimpering loser. However, I just wish he did so much more before this point. If he had gone "Scorched Earth" and massacred millions in one of the final episodes of the season, I wouldn't have minded his arc in the final season. In other words: this ending, in itself, isn't a bad ending for Homelander. It's just that he should have actually done some true damage to the world and caused mass destruction before reaching this state. That's just how I feel.

What have the boys done to my goat😭😭

SPOILER ALERT FOR "THE BOYS" SERIES FINALE: I was just hoping that Butcher killing Homelander would make me feel a lot more than it actually did. It was pretty satisfying seeing Homelander panic after losing his powers, become terrified, and beg for his life, but the final battle was just so... underwhelming. It had very little drama, there were unnecessary jokes that undermined the tension, and it felt like it ended way too quickly. Butcher repeatedly punching Homelander was a tad bit dramatic, but that's, like, the bare minimum they could have done. They ended the battle somewhat similarly to the comics, with Butcher using his crowbar to rip Homelander's brains out, so I guess it's some nice homage, but everything just felt like a massive whimper after the whole "Scorched Earth" promise. No Homelander rampage. No deaths of tons of innocent people. No destroyed buildings. Nothing. This has to be one of the most misleading marketing campaigns of all time. It was just a mediocre action scene in the Oval Office, and the final words between Butcher and Homelander were so hollow. "You can't do this! I am the Homelander! No, you ain't nothin'. This is for my Becca." That's it? The Deep's death was also not as satisfying as it could have been. One second he's in the sea after Starlight threw him there, the next... a tentacle goes through his mouth instantly, he's dead, he gets dragged down, Starlight looks confused, and that's it. Really? After 7 years... that's how you resolve these major conflicts? Hughie killing Butcher was supposed to be the dramatic and heartbreaking resolution of the story, but the dialogue just felt so... cliched, and mundane. It, once again, made me feel nothing... after all these years. And the final scene of the show... again: nothing. Just generic happy music, Hughie and Starlight kissing, and we're done. As everyone expected after watching Episode 7, this finale was rushed. It's almost like they were planning to do 15 episodes, reached the 7th episode, building in the pace they intended, and then got told "Yeah, you have only one more episode to wrap it all up". I don't know how this finale will be received and what score audiences will give it. It most likely won't be anywhere near as hated as the "Game of Thrones" finale. I don't think anything will ever top that in terms of disappointment. It's probably going to be received similarly to the Stranger Things finale. It was a little dramatic, and the major deaths might make others feel more than I did, but I'm almost certain it's going to be mixed. I have a strong inkling this has no chance of being considered a universally satisfying conclusion to 7 years of storytelling, but who knows? Maybe, people will love it. I see a lot of differing opinions on Twitter right now: people loving it, people hating it, people thinking it's just fine, etc.

You're so intellectually dishonest when it comes to Jake Paul, always arguing in bad faith when discussing him. If you genuinely thought that Jake was racist off of that Theo Von podcast clip, I don't know what to tell you. Jake clearly stated in that clip that he thought Druski's whiteface skit was funny; he just said there should be no limits on comedy and that it should be allowed both ways. If you're being satirical, what you do or say isn't meant to be taken seriously. Druski isn't racist for that whiteface skit because he's just joking around. That's the definition of comedy. Now, you might respond with, "Jake's not funny; Druski is." Fair enough. Not being funny does not automatically mean something is racist. Something being funny and something being racist are two entirely independent things. Jake saying he wants no limits on comedy does not make him a racist. He clarified that in his recent stream, where he said he thinks everyone should be allowed to make fun of everyone else, including white Republicans like himself. If you're going to reference old clips of Jake saying inflammatory things, we could do the same all day long with KSI. You say KSI has apologized for his past antics? So has Jake, as recently as a few weeks ago in an interview about business. Actually, KSI is clearly not a liberal either. He stated in a Side+ podcast just a few years ago (when he was in his "I've changed; I'm not like Andrew Tate" phase) that he disliked Ethan Klein because he started becoming "more liberal". KSI always complains about cancel culture, people being soft, and people not being able to take dark jokes. How many times has he made fun of those types of people over the past 6 years? You don't seem to have a problem with that, so why do you have a problem with Jake also thinking there should be no limits on dark humor? Someone is only bigoted if they're genuinely being discriminatory and treating others in a denigrating way because of an inherent character they posses. You may reference what Jake said about Bad Bunny not being a "real American" as an example of him being racist, but Jake clarified the exact same day that people completely misinterpreted his tweet. He didn't mean Puerto Ricans are not real Americans. He said he meant that people who benefit off of America and then criticize it (that includes U.S. citizens) are not "real Americans". Now, that's a dumb sentiment because people are allowed to criticize their home country's government, and I think Jake's an idiot for saying that, but it does not make Jake a racist. If he truly despised Puerto Ricans, why would he have spent the last 5 years promoting Amanda Serrano like she's the second coming of Christ? Why does he constantly talk about how much he loves Puerto Rican culture and the people there? Why does he constantly host events there and support the locals by opening boxing gyms? Jake's not racist. He's clearly not homophobic (he's stated in multiple podcasts that he thinks gay people are the coolest people on the planet). He's also not transphobic. He said he supports trans people's rights to "dress and act however they want" in his Trump endorsement video; he just disagrees with widely controversial things (even among liberals) like allowing trans women in women's sports or women's bathrooms.

@D_TheHooper2323 @tyronepauler @MisfitsBoxing how are you still a Jake Paul fan as a black man when he’s been racist for ages and confirmed it with the blackface shit lol

Could Jon Jones shake up the Misfits Heavyweight division 🤔

@AKabucelli66369 @usykaa And what is Rico Verhoeven in a boxing match? You think he even stands a chance against a Top 30 guy?

@SecondUser2500 @usykaa Kabayel is nothing on top 5, another heavy puncher, another "clear" record without elite opponents, Usyk eats their every day✌️

Face to face in front of the pyramids! Glory in Giza | May 23rd

Thing is, neither of those two fights should have been overhyped in the first place. Both fights were obviously going to be one-sided. Most people who know a lot (or even a little) about the sports knew that Jake at 27 wouldn't struggle against Mike at 58. And, they knew that Ronda was far more elite than Gina ever was, and she remained in shape for far longer, so the fight was going to be extremely lopsided. I wasn't hyped for either fight, and neither should anyone else have been. They were obviously going to be spectacle fights and not high-level, 50/50 wars between evenly matched fighters in their primes.

Jake Paul vs Mike Tyson was disappointing. Ronda Rousey vs Gina Carano was disappointing. Script wrestling gives more chaos & entertainment worth money than these overhyped fights ever will.

A lot of combat sports viewers don't like it when one fighter is clearly stalling or holding back because they know their opponent stands no chance and want to make the fight entertaining. Tyson Fury had this is in his recent trilogy fight with Dereck Chisora. People would rather see a fighter finish the job as soon as they are capable of doing so.

@SecondUser2500 @GirlsDislikeMe For sure but you’d think for the sake of the entertainment and possible future fights maybe she’d try to make it at least somewhat entertaining? It’s an exhibition lol. Nobody is ever gonna pay to watch her again

I mean who does that to a fighter who hadn’t fought in 17 years

@quinw_ @iRawDogAss @GirlsDislikeMe What about what I said was wrong?

@SecondUser2500 @iRawDogAss @GirlsDislikeMe shut the fuck up

I don't think there was any hype surrounding this. Even Ronda wasn't celebrating like it was a massive victory. It's just that the OP almost makes it out like she did something immoral by dragging a poor old woman out of retirement or something. Carano is a fighter and a consenting adult. She agreed to take a fight she was almost certain to lose. She got destroyed. I don't really get why people are hating on Ronda for this. She's just doing her job (beating her opponent in whatever way is possible). It's the same way I feel about Jake Paul vs Mike Tyson. As much of a pathetic fight as that was, it was, once again, a fight between two mutually consenting adults. Tyson wasn't some poor old man who was dragged out of retirement. He was a grown man with agency. He knew that his health was at stake, yet he chose to take the fight for a 20 million dollar payday and didn't really suffer much damage because Jake kinda took it easy on him in the second half of the fight and coasted a decision victory with his jab. I don't get why people make the other side (Jake and Ronda) out to be evil when they're just doing their jobs against people who consented to getting punched in the face. This is completely different from something like Conor McGregor beating up a random, non-consenting old man (who isn't a fighter) at a bar, yet he seems to get far less hate for that incident than Jake and Ronda for fighting actual fighters in sanctioned fights, for whatever reason.

@SecondUser2500 @GirlsDislikeMe No one said they can’t retard, but beating a woman that’s been out of shape for years and hasn’t fought in almost 2 decades isn’t anything to be hyped about