Why does Cred Forums get so triggered by him?

This is why
youtube.com/watch?v=X1nnNz_Tewk

How is it not literal animal abuse? Because I think my dog likes it? You think this is a legit argument?

Also this
youtube.com/watch?v=Ji0JlPfeLSc

Adam "Doggy Style" Johnston
Adam "Red Rocket in his Pocket" Johnston
Adam "No whores, just those on all fours" Johnston
Adam "The Canadian Dog Fucker Extraordinaire" Johnston
Adam "animals can consent" Johnston
Adam "Man's best friend with benefits" Johnston
Adam "if there's fur on the field play ball" Johnston
Adam "industrial sized tub of peanutbutter" Johnston
Adam "give the dog a bone" Johnston
Adam "Eat-the-puss, Rex" Johnston
Adam "Fido Can't Say No" Johnston
Adam "The feller' for Old Yeller" Johnston
Adam "Give a Dog a bone" Johnston
Adam "Licking Lassie" Johnston

>People like this exist in my country

He is a literal dog rapist...also his film taste is horrid.

>Adam "Red Rocket in his Pocket" Johnston

Didn't read the whole thing but if we're elevating animals enough to take "consent" into account, how is keeping pets not equivalent to slavery?

>"I know it's heresy but I don't really like to watch that many old movies. There's an obvious lack of quality on a technical level due to the primitive technology. Yeah sure, there's no doubt that Eisenstein and Bergman are very influential but in my opinion, their movies don't hold up. The people that tend to praise the films of Kurosawa and Welles are usually either pretending to be infatuated with them to give off the look that they're cinephiles or just take influence into account when it comes to cinema. I personally like to take an objective approach to film criticism and not take into account influence and other subjective variables."

I'm in tears

Idk? Seems like a dumb point. You can also get sick from fucking animals....thats mostly why we made laws against it...

Adam "If your dog starts kicking you can stop dicking" Johnston

Source????

Hes the personification of the disgusting breed of poser pleb who thinks himself better than everyone else because he likes Jordorowsky / Heneke movies.

Also a dog rapist who dismisses out of hand any movie made before 1973 (coincidentally the year his favorite movie everest came out, BUT EVERY OLD MOVIE BEFORE IT IS TRASH xDD!)

>It's a daily "We post all the disgusting screencaps of YMS instead of just ignoring him" episode

You know, he does have a lot of interesting things to actually say...but if he really thinks that any movie before 1970 whenever is shit because it is "old"...thats really retarded

Yes, great, but do we always have to this lame ass thread every day where we repeat all the shit he says, like that statement you repeated?

>thats mostly why we made laws against it

I feel like we have laws against it mostly because of religious reasons and a common feeling of disgust. The latter of which would likely keep laws against bestiality in play even if all unbiased logic said there was no problem.

A bit of a disclaimer: I'm all for laws against it, I just think it's an interesting debate. In most cases, logic or reason isn't a factor, it's just a sense of "That's disgusting, let's ban it".

>Adam "Man's best friend with benefits" Johnston

Ive never contributed to a YMS thread until today, mate. I never even notice them up. Its not as frequent as you seem to believe.

Except he thinks 2001 is a 10/10 movie and that was '68

He seems to be the type of person to say something controversial just so he can play devils advocate.

Aside from the whole "dog fucking/furry" thing (which seems irrelevant as far as taste in movies go), he sometimes tends to nitpick in his negative reviews, and the fact that he gave semi-positive reviews to the Hobbit movies turns me off to his opinion.

On the other hand, there are a couple reviews I found amusing, and I do appreciate his "Top __ of the Year". It made me aware of several movies which I ended up loving, plus an increased awareness of foreign films.

Hes not explicitly defending fucking animals in this, and his point about animal abuse isnt wrong...I literally agree with the first major paragraph. The second one though gets a bit murky

Unsubscribed

>I'm a movie buff

2001 is a 10/10 though, mate. Only contrarians think otherwise. Its the closest Kubrick got to a perfect film.

youtube.com/watch?v=vK03NEXXnvo

He was probably legit happy when Trudeau legalized sucking off dogs.

>Its the closest Kubrick got to a perfect film.
Frankly sir, that's horse shit.

I know

Because...?

He's the CM Punk of movie critics without the success.

Because Paths of Glory and Dr. Strangelove are both flawless movies. They're not as spectacular effect wise as 2001, but as films go they're fucking flawless, and I'd rather rewatch either of them over 2001.

Not saying its a bad movie, I'm saying you're an asshole for saying its the closest he got to a perfect film.

Weird thing to call someone an asshole for

I fucking hate his stupid voice

Its a weird thing to be an asshole about.

Yet I wasnt

I wonder if he also think's a kid can give consent because thats his entire logic

I used to like him, but then he started getting money from his fans and stopped making funny videos mocking shitty movies and started taking himself way too seriously and insists on making serious reviews full of pretentious criticisms and half assing his funny videos. Also he is a fucking furry.

Go to bed Adam.

but a kid can

>The people v. David D. Davidson
>B-but your honor... she consented!