TGWTG Kyle Kallgren / Oancitizen / Brows Held High - Afraid of the Eggnog Ninjas, "Male Feminist" that Abuses Women, 2nd-rate Cinema Snob, Hugh Hefner A-Log, Fat Creepy Incel Cuck

[Flexo]

I'm amazed no one cited this cancerous video of Kyle's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZWMTGF1pNw

That would require actually watching one of his videos. Which is just more than a sane stable mind can handle.

The title:
"Shakespeare needs more gay."

There, I saved you from having to know any more. (also, it's a crossover)

 

[LordofCringe7206]

That moment you realize that the guy that wanted to fuck a green m&m is less of a creep compared to others on the site...

It's laughable now and days to reminisce about how there was a time where Linkara was considered to be the worst sexual deviant on the site. Knowing what we now know about CA and it's employees, we hadn't even hit the tip of the iceberg regarding sexual deviants on that website.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

That would require actually watching one of his videos. Which is just more than a sane stable mind can handle.

I'll sit through it. What I don't get about "needs more gay" guy is why everything he looks at needs to be more gay. How would adding homo to a movie improve it? Why is homosexuality a criteria to a movie's quality?

So this review starts off as cringey as you'd expect from these two super losers. Both of them try their hardest to come off as charismatic and it falls short of being at the high end of awkward. Kyle does the intro of his show and gay dude cuts in to declare the episode's title. Then Kyle holds out his index finger and says "wait" and about five seconds pass before he shouts "CROSSOVER!" with his head flung back, nose pointed at the ceiling, like a Peanuts character.

They then talk about the research they did to "prove" that Shakespeare liked butt sex over vagina sex and the only thing they found were his early sonnets. They explain that Sonnet 18 "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" was addressed to a man known as the "Fair Youth". Kyle then recites Sonnet 20 to prove that Sonnet 18 is totes homo sex you guise.

They then start calling Shakespeare sexist because he complained about women's fashion being a revolving door of change.

It's at this point I have to note they have yet to live up to the episode's namesake of "adding more gay to Shakespeare" considering all they've done is point out things in his writing that hint at the idea of him wanting to buttfuck a malchick, further pointing out that editors have for centuries erased hints of him wanting to spear the chocolate starfish. They then bring up Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick as a source to prove their claim of edits being made to replace "him"s with "her"s in Shakespeare's work. Her work cites that Shakespeare never really made a distinction of male on male love being inferior to male on female love.

Hey progressives, you wanna know what's really bigoted towards gay people? Constantly trying to diagnose someone with a case of the gays at the slightest wiff of not-straight to prove that the biggest heroes of history caught the homo brain at birth the way you idiots do makes it look like an abnormal tumor to be removed.

Then the derpy duo point out Shakespeare In Love as "heteronormative fanfiction" like their interpretation of him sucking dick isn't equally fanfictionish. They're not wrong in calling it fanfiction since it's alternate history, but it's just as much of a what-if as they're positing in this video.

They then admit that it's practically impossible to prove his sexuality one way or another, to which Rantasmo states "That's why I'm not all that interested in speculating about what Shakespear's sexuality might have been."

After you spent five minutes in an eleven minute video doing just exactly that.

They then decide to speculate about the sexuality of his work instead. That's sorta backwards when you examine it for two seconds. You failed to prove Shakespeare himself is gay, so you fall back on trying to prove his work had themes of homoerotica instead? Usually you point out the author's attributes when you want to prove something about their work, not the other way around.

But it gets better, they both admit that it's going to be just as tricky trying to pin down the sexual preferences displayed in his work as it was trying to prove the author's own sexuality because, and get a load of this...

This is just a few sentences away from when they admit that sexual standards today have been a thing since 450 years ago.

Homosexuality has been a concept since the Ancient Greeks and before. Fun fact I learned from Kyle himself, they were totes cool with men having reach around sessions, but were non-too fond of lesbian sex. Homosexual behaviors are observable in motherfucking animals for fuck's sake. It was the Ancient Greeks themselves who invented the very concept of a fucking hermaphrodite. They even created a God around the concept called "Hermaphroditus", how the fucking fuck could a wannabe scholar like you be this fucking ignorant on human Goddamn history, Kyle?!

Oh but this is beautiful, they have the balls to then turn around and say that the behaviors and sexual preferences themselves have always been around but it's the perception that's modern.

No nigger, that's literally not what you said. You said that the difference of homosexuality and heterosexuality is new in and of itself, you weasel wording troglodytes.

They then pull out another source from their ass, much unlike they have done with their heads, to prove their dumbass claim by citing "Shakes Queer", where the opening statement of the book states that it's damn near impossible to get a working definition of what counts as queer for all of human history and culture. Why is that?

Because "if queerness can be defined, then it is no longer queer"

~Modhavi Menon, "Shakesqueer: A Queer Companion to the Complete Works of Shakespear"​

Do these idiots not realize that "queer" is a slur to mean "abnormal"? That's why defining something as queer makes it cease to be queer, because it ceases to be an abnormality. Synonymizing it with homosexuality is as bad an insult to gay people as calling them a faggot, retards, which is the point being made by every homo"phobe" when they use the word you titanic morons.

The closest they come to "proving" Shakespeare's work has homosexual themes in it are when characters speak using trochees rather than iambs, such as the bearded witches from Macbeth or the fairies from A Midsummer Night's Dream. They call this idea "queer coding". This whole concept is such a desperate strawgrasp, as everyone expected it would be, that it should be disregarded altogether, much like this video.

They then jump to a tangent about when homosexuals first started being called fairies. I don't have the exact answer but I do know that the Irish believed that fairies were evil fuckers who would take your loved ones to some nether realm and impersonate them, using their image as a way to walk the Earth and any abnormal behavior was a way of telling if someone you knew was really just a fairy in disguise. So it probably stands to reason that eventually homosexual behavior = demonic fucking possession.

The retarded rabble then pontificate that the fairies from Midsummer Night's Dream are coded homosexual because they act fanciful and campy.

Maybe that's because they're a fucking mythical Goddamn creature? They then point out that Puck is "a sassy gay friend who delights in the foibles of the drama around him"

Puck is supposed to undermine the drama, you 'tards. He is designed as comic relief. The whole point of that entire play is to be subversive of Shakespeare's other works because no one dies at the end. Fuck, the Fairy king Oberon in the play has a wife named Titania. Gee, I wonder what sort of subtext there might be in a female character who's named Titania.

Look at how much they have to stretch meanings and definitions and obfuscate truths to prove that there's something somewhere about Shakespeare that's actually gay. This is so fucking pathetic, just stop.

Then they point out that modern mythical characters are played by androgynous people on purpose. Because, no shit? They're not supposed to look typical of an average person, they're supposed to look otherworldly, because they're not human. What the Hell sort of purpose does this serve in proving that Shakespeare's work is gay? That the existence of weirdo genderbent characters in today's fiction somehow retroactively changes the nature of a dead man's work? What a repugnant thought, then again, Kyle is a faggot for the death of the author.

Oh God, now I'm up to a part where they start talking about Shakespeare writing genderfluidity into his plays. I can't wait to see how easily disprovable this turns out to be.

So we're talking about Twelfth Night now? Never heard of it so maybe there's a point to be made here. It'd be the first solid thing they'd have since they started this diatribe seven minutes and thirty seconds ago.

Jesus fuck I'm still a whole four minutes away from reaching the end.

So their reasoning for Twelfth Night being genderqueer is that Viola dresses up as a man to hide her identity and uses the name Cesario, the name of her dead brother, the memory of whom she is keeping alive by impersonating him. Cesario acts as a go-between for two people of the opposite sex and they both end up fawning over Viola. The beautiful part about this is that they straight up admit that both couples in this story are straight because Olivia fell for Viola's alternate identity, Cesario, & the two couples never collide to form a threesome. lol, that was pointless.

This entire video is more like an examination of how Shakespeare kinda, sorta, maybe brushes up against these concepts but in reality comes nowhere close.

Then they complain that "what could have been" some freaky threeway between one man and two women (which is absolutely the reality of such a triangle) was instead two straight couples, even though the woman presenting as male to Olivia is in truth a woman much to the absence of Olivia's knowledge. Here you have a quasi-gay couple, actual plausible evidence of homosexuality in a Shakespeare play, and that suddenly isn't good enough when compared to the totes totally-not-heterosexual-wish-fulfillment fantasy of pimp-daddy and his two bottom bitches.

Then Rantasmo (Should be called "Fagtasmo" instead) makes the remark "Yeah, queerness is an obstacle and happily-ever-after is always cis-hetero"

Fuck off, faggot. Shakespeare lived in an oppressive post-medieval monarchy state where women weren't allowed to act in plays. They would've lynched him in the fucking streets if he dared to be so Goddamn bold. He'd have cojones of solid stone, sure, but he'd be brutal-ass rape dead. They probably would've killed him with a Judas cradle.

They then point out other possibilities. By far the strongest case they have is As You Like It, where two women share a bed together and one woman longs for the other, very blatantly hinting at the idea of lesbo sex. By the by, Kyle, fantasizing about homosex between two people of the sex opposite to yourself does not a homo of yourself make. If anything, the woman on woman angle makes Shakespeare straight as an arrow.

Oh but it gets better, this is the best part and it's by far the most retarded. We're near to the end folks, it's a bumpy ride out of Hell, strap yourself in for this one motherfuckers!

Shakespeare's plays and he himself by extension of them are gay...

Spoiler

because the characters could only be played by men when he wrote them.

Smegheads, the reason why men played in Shakespeare's plays is because no woman wanted to end up at the end of the noose for breaking the law. This is so fucking retarded I can feel the braincells in my head die in legions as I write this.

Then Fagtasmo decides to spout off at the mouth that "Seeing Shakespeare though a queer lens makes sense. If we're going to continue this narrative that Shakespeare is the greatest writer in the English language, that all forms of humanity can be found in his works-- / that he "invented the human" / --right, wouldn't that mean all forms of humanity? All genders? All sexes? All identities? all forms of love?"

Yes, including all the ones of actual recent invention that the author had no working concept of whatsoever. Don't you just love that their narrative of Shakespeare's alleged homosexuality/genderqueerdom/bestiality hinges on the public's opinion of Shakespeare's importance to the world of literature and not by anything substantial like his actual work or the man himself? Get bent, you historical revisionist clownshoes.

And with that, the review of the review is done.

 

[BigTubboWithLittleChina]

It's laughable now and days to reminisce about how there was a time where Linkara was considered to be the worst sexual deviant on the site. Knowing what we now know about CA and it's employees, we hadn't even hit the tip of the iceberg regarding sexual deviants on that website.

Possibly fftopic:, but Linkara's fantasies are either relatively common or so dumb that they become almost endearing in their stupidity. And crucially, to the best of our knowledge he's never tried to make any of them reality - no hiring futa hookers to dress up as dead Muppets molesting green M And Ms that we know about. His sexual urges are daft but harmless. Whatever else, he doesn't appear to be a serial creeper or rapist, which puts him above most of CA's producers/ex-producers in terms of basic human decency. Except for his splitting up with Liz, I suppose.

 

[Duncan Hills Coffee]

They then start calling Shakespeare sexist because he complained about women's fashion being a revolving door of change.

I fail to see how Shakespeare is wrong there.

You sir are a trooper for sitting through this shit. Trying to make Shakespeare into something he's not is extremely disturbing to me. I'm pretty sure he didn't care about gender fluidity, because a concept like that didn't exist in 1500s England. Plus, whatever plays he has that features "gender-fluid" characters, like you said, are meant to be otherworldly aka not human. Not to mention some of those plays are comedies, not meant to be taken seriously.

 

[Foltest]

I would never be able to get through 30 secs of those two smugs assholes. Everything they spew is from their first year in collage and nothing more. Marvin, you are a hero for getting through this shit.

 

[Magnum Dong]

What I don't get about "needs more gay" guy is why everything he looks at needs to be more gay. How would adding homo to a movie improve it? Why is homosexuality a criteria to a movie's quality?

Needs More Gay is sort of a misnomer joke title. The dude's videos are predominantly about gay media and/or media popular w/lgbtq audiences anyway, and most of his content is just, like, "here's how the queer content is handled in this movie, etc". There's rarely a genuine push for "more" gay; his videos seem to advocate for better representation rather than more of it. Not that that makes his content any more engaging - it's pretty dull and not very inflammatory.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Needs More Gay is sort of a misnomer joke title.

Good job with the misleading title, Rantasmo.

The dude's videos are predominantly about gay media and/or media popular w/lgbtq audiences anyway, and most of his content is just, like, "here's how the queer content is handled in this movie, etc". There's rarely a genuine push for "more" gay;

Rest assured that in this video they do exactly that.

 

[Gordon Cole]

In 11 minutes, two soyboy faggots (figuratively) jerk each other off over one of the most blatantly revisionist readings of Shakespeare I've ever seen.

And I thought the Anti-Stratfordians were exceptional...

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

I would never be able to get through 30 secs of those two smugs assholes. Everything they spew is from their first year in collage and nothing more. Marvin, you are a hero for getting through this shit.

Thank you. I actually enjoy ripping into Kyle as much as possible. Any other videos?

 

[Foltest]

Thank you. I actually enjoy ripping into Kyle as much as possible. Any other videos?

shit, there is a bunch of videos where Kyle is acting like a tard. His video on the film Shame is really bad and he act smug throughout it (as least as I remember it).

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

His video on the film Shame

I legit cannot find it.

 

[Foltest]

Now that you mention it, I think that he took it down. I have never heard a reason, but I think he reilase how fucking wrong he was.

 

[Heckler1]

Any "critic" that starts doing "thing needs more gay/is racist/is actually a horrible ism is pretty much just screaming that they are un-fuckable and desperately want someone to realize they are pretty too.

They are not, and never will be

 

[Feline Darkmage]

So last year he had Shakespeare Month during Pride Month (June) which is why in the video linked by @Harlon Wick and analyzed by @MarvinTheParanoidAndroid he had the Rantasmo crossover. Well, this thing popped up in the related videos so I watched it because I like Shakespeare insults and dirty jokes and wanted to see what Kyle had to say on the subject.

Well halfway through he starts talking about how fag isn't something people in polite society say any more because its killed people (no, people calling people fags while killing them, have killed people, Kyle) and how "cuck" as "replaced" fag as the insult towards non-masculine men.

Basically straight boy Kyle "The Cuck" Kallgren is trying to syphon his own oppression points away from LGBT people because his woke feelings are hurt that people keep calling him a fat, sweaty cuck.

 

[Heckler1]

So last year he had Shakespeare Month during Pride Month (June) which is why in the video linked by @Harlon Wick and analyzed by @MarvinTheParanoidAndroid he had the Rantasmo crossover. Well, this thing popped up in the related videos so I watched it because I like Shakespeare insults and dirty jokes and wanted to see what Kyle had to say on the subject.

Well halfway through he starts talking about how fag isn't something people in polite society say any more because its killed people (no, people calling people fags while killing them, have killed people, Kyle) and how "cuck" as "replaced" fag as the insult towards non-masculine men.

Basically straight boy Kyle "The Cuck" Kallgren is trying to syphon his own oppression points away from LGBT people because his woke feelings are hurt that people keep calling him a fat, sweaty cuck.

So basically he admitted he's a fag? Pretty obvious imo

 

[Gordon Cole]

It's not Shame, but I found his Girlfriend Experience review that he took down for "slutshaming" if anyone's brave enough to sit through it.

 

[A Useless Fish]

It's not Shame, but I found his Girlfriend Experience review that he took down for "slutshaming" if anyone's brave enough to sit through it.

I vaguely remember watching this video years ago. He was a smug, hateful piece of shit in it, and basically degraded the female protaganist in a way I actually found misogynistic. His whole routine in the video was just calling her a whore; over and over and over again, because she was a porn star who also wrote and performed her own music on the side. Like that cocksucker had any right to judge her in the first place. She actually fucjking did something with her life, and was making a success of it. What the fuck has this smug, dime store Cinema Snob got to be so fucking proud of in comparison?

 

[Y2K Baby]

I vaguely remember watching this video years ago. He was a smug, hateful piece of shit in it, and basically degraded the female protaganist in a way I actually found misogynistic. His whole routine in the video was just calling her a whore; over and over and over again, because she was a porn star who also wrote and performed her own music on the side. Like that cocksucker had any right to judge her in the first place. She actually fucjking did something with her life, and was making a success of it. What the fuck has this smug, dime store Cinema Snob got to be so fucking proud of in comparison?

Also, he shit-talked Evangelion in Sage's review. What a DICK.

 

[Feline Darkmage]

Also, he shit-talked Evangelion in Sage's review. What a DICK.

We should cyberbully him for being a faggot.