A WOKE MORON Thinks This Tweet Proves CRITICAL DRINKER Is A RACE BAITING BIGOT

[@Vintagesonic1]

33:53 - 34:19 The fact Birdman immediately coming to the conclusion that Drinker is talking about the black woman in the image makes it so that by definition Birdman himself is projecting. I dunno, man. I don't think it's normal to immediately think of the black woman when looking at a screenshot of the Minecraft movie trailer under a tweet that mentions nothing about race. As to quote the Birdman: "That my children is what we in the English-speaking World call projection."

[@The_Punisher]

I used to really like Birdman then I realized how biased he is to movies he likes and will try to defend even the worst of the worst movies like Last Jedi

[@sandmancinema6859]

So I looked at this twitter. Which is so hilarious that he claims he isn't right or left. Because anyone right of Mao would think he is obviously on a leftist. But anyway he has a post where he puts a hot take. Where there is a picture of 5 marvel movies. Thor Love and Thunder, Black Panther 2, Guardians Of The Galaxy 3, Ant Man 3 and Multiverse of Madness. And says he thinks 3 of those movies are great. Talk about embarrassing.

[@johnnycrown5097]

@@The_Punisher he's a toxic lover... He's the perfect shill... At least cinema wins just cherrypicks for praises... He actually goes after criticisms of bad movies to debunk them and attack the person making those criticism... He's the perfect shill, a PR campaign... Does anyone even need to pay him... He thinks since he loves movies, he's beyond criticism and he would always be on the right side in comparison to how people always go after critics, only critics can be lambasted if they don't even get anything wrong but if they did, it's the end of the world, whilst shills like him don't even need to bother to be accurate, it's ok since they're praising the show... He's the destruction of Hollywood and storytelling personified...

[@dudewithachannel1163]

A debunk to this video: Before I get to the main point, I'd like to put Sandman himself into perspective and his concerning level of bias towards Drinker. This is someone that drank the kool-aid, even one look through his channel shows he's a diehard Drinker defender, but this man actually tries excusing Drinker for sending his toxic fanbase to bully people, twice. This video is littered with misinterpretation, hypocrisy, cringe use of clips, strawman arguments, lies, and insane mental gymnastics to make Drinker seem like he's innocent, at least in his mind. I honestly wasn't prepared for the sheer amount of terrible takes I had to filter through during this debunk. If you've dealt with pedantic Drinker stans in the past, or braindead sheep in general, you'll probably have a good idea of how this video will play out. With that, onto the video. Strap in this is a long one. Sandman immediately shows how little his integrity to criticism is when he has literally nothing to say in the one minute intro where Birdman sums up his main talking point specifically for the children that make up Drinkers fandom, he pretends to have the patience of a three year old like watching a minute long intro is such a long time. This guy thinks CinemaSins are dumb when they both have the same silly mentality. And he actually says "the Critical Drinker is the biggest film critic on the internet" 😂😂😂 Firstly, the dude isn't even a critic, and doesn't ever talk about a film outside of basic observation or the actors political view. Calling him a critic is like calling O.J. Simpson a family man, much less the best. Even someone in one of Sandman's videos, someone from his audience told me Drinker isn't a critic. So this is just a simp simping. How about this, Drinker's the biggest film troll in his little echo chamber, but that's about it. 2:10 "nice job putting vaccines cause autism and go woke go broke together, because those two statements are on the same level of validity." Indeed they are. Both are nothing phrases with no real evidence to back them up spread by sheep who don't do their own research but think they've been red-pilled lol He then tries to discredit the examples where "woke" films don't bomb which goes against the whole point of "go woke go broke." The point of the phrase and Drinkers whole career is to make people think any project with "woke" content will fail, but when that's disproven by films like Barbie making a billion dollars, these film trolls will usually try to hold onto their handful of examples to validate their confirmation bias. In reality there are plenty of films with "woke" messaging that still do great financially and critically with only a select few that bomb, usually unrelated to being "woke." The phrase isn't "Go woke and you might go broke." So why aren't these films Birdman mentioned failures? Why should we ignore the clear examples pointing to this phrase being wrong? Vaccines cause autism ignore the facts? Ah alright. 2:35 "How many examples do you need of woke media bombing for you to believe the statement?" When films that have "woke agendas" stop making money for one. We should be asking how many examples do you need of woke media succeeding for you to realize Drinker is wrong and doesn't have as big a voice as you like to think? Are you starting to understand what Birdman was saying at the start of his video yet? Lol "The problem is when a movies message matters more than the art." Then why do movies like Get Out, one of the wokest films ever, make money? Or Zootopia a film about stereotypes and inclusion? Or Barbie a shamelessly feminist film? It's almost like a movies message can not only matter more but actually be the art and it still works :3 And let's not kid ourselves, Drinker doesn't care if the "woke" content is taking priority over the art. None of these anti-woke channels want movies to improve, otherwise they'd be out of a job. Drinker wrote a full book with a female character consistently beating men three times her bodyweight in combat, this man doesn't even believe what grift he preaches lol [part 2] pardon this part being placed here, part 2 and 3 got deleted and I can't comment anymore. 5:40 "Drinker isn't a right wing chud like everyone on the left thinks he is." My guy, he's friends with Ben Shapiro. I know you love to watch his slop too but even you have to admit you can't get much more right wing chud than that. Your rose tinted glasses are blinding you here. 6:30 "Just because you criticize someone else doesn't make you unbiased." Were you... not listening to why he brought that up? He's saying he goes after a much larger fish, hence the title "everything wrong with CinemaSins." This isn't "just clout chasing." But even then, he punches nobody channels (like you) down too, recently he's decided to go after a lot of Flat-Earthers, a grift that's been a shadow of its former self and on a sharp decline for a long time. Doesn't sound much like he's clout chasing. But cute attempt at using the generic "He just wants your attention" cope method. (Side note: CinemaSins is an example of a larger internet "critic" than Drinker in just about every category lol) 7:59 "Drinker probably meant a prominent character, one that has more than five minutes of screentime." Well which one is it? Captain Stacy is a well recognized prominent character, the story wouldn't even happen without him. Just because a character has little screentime doesn't mean they can't have a big role. I guess Uncle Ben isn't that important a character then lol But alright, what about Kingpin? Or The Spot? Or Spider-Noir? Or the multitude of Peters in both movies? It's much more likely Drinker has a lazy memory (or a message to get across 🤔) 8:35 "She doesn't need to be there, and just because there is a purpose to a character doesn't mean they need to make stupid decisions." My guy... M.J. was likely at work. Is Peter just not allowed to bring her to his workplace? Lol He then displays clips from trailers saying Peter used to take her to fights, and ignores him saying he doesn't do that anymore, until the last scene of the movie. What's the problem here? At worst Miguel will be angry at them but he's not going to hurt Mayday. He then goes on a strawman argument thinking Birdman said we're not supposed to notice when protagonists get mistreated, when Birdman was saying Drinker points that out in films which don't do that. So we're allowed to ignore when Go Woke Go Broke is disproven and Drinker is allowed to ignore criticism and refuses to learn anything, but we should boohoo when a character is mistreated, because they're mostly white, mostly straight, and mostly male. You really disproved Birdman's point here lol 11:44-12:12 Your rebuddle is movies aren't usually grounded or based on reality... when this is probably the most grounded Batman universe yet. Brilliant comeback. "It kind of makes you look foolish to be baffled someone would make this assumption." How? Literally nothing in the trailer suggest he's going to America, in fact a lot of clips in said trailer show him in anywhere but America. Just because a few people made that assumption doesn't disprove that Drinker has bad observation.

[@dudewithachannel1163]

[part 2] 5:40 "Drinker isn't a right wing chud like everyone on the left thinks he is." My guy, he's friends with Ben Shapiro. I know you love to watch his slop too but even you have to admit you can't get much more right wing chud than that. Your rose tinted glasses are blinding you here. 6:30 "Just because you criticize someone else doesn't make you unbiased." Were you... not listening to why he brought that up? He's saying he goes after a much larger fish, hence the title "everything *wrong* with CinemaSins." This isn't "just clout chasing." But even then, he punches nobody channels (like you) down too, recently he's decided to go after a lot of Flat-Earthers, a grift that's been a shadow of its former self and on a sharp decline for a long time. Doesn't sound much like he's clout chasing. But cute attempt at using the generic "He just wants your attention" cope method. (Side note: CinemaSins is an example of a larger internet "critic" than Drinker in just about every category lol) 7:59 "Drinker probably meant a prominent character, one that has more than five minutes of screentime." Well which one is it? Captain Stacy is a well recognized prominent character, the story wouldn't even happen without him. Just because a character has little screentime doesn't mean they can't have a big role. I guess Uncle Ben isn't that important a character then lol But alright, what about Kingpin? Or The Spot? Or Spider-Noir? Or the multitude of Peters in both movies? It's much more likely Drinker has a lazy memory (or a message to get across 🤔) 8:35 "She doesn't need to be there, and just because there is a purpose to a character doesn't mean they need to make stupid decisions." My guy... M.J. was likely at work. Is Peter just not allowed to bring her to his workplace? Lol He then displays clips from trailers saying Peter used to take her to fights, and ignores him saying he doesn't do that anymore, until the last scene of the movie. What's the problem here? At worst Miguel will be angry at them but he's not going to hurt a toddler. He then goes on a strawman argument thinking Birdman said we're not supposed to notice when white protagonists get mistreated, when Birdman was saying Drinker points that out in films which don't do that. So we're allowed to ignore when Go Woke Go Broke is disproven and Drinker is allowed to ignore criticism he refuses to learn from, but we should boohoo when a character is mistreated, because they're mostly white, mostly straight, and mostly male. You really disproved Birdman's point here lol 11:44-12:12 Your rebuddle is movies aren't usually grounded or based on reality... when this is probably the most grounded Batman universe yet. Brilliant comeback. "It kind of makes you look foolish to be baffled someone would make this assumption." How? Literally nothing in the trailer suggest he's going to America, in fact a lot of clips in said trailer show him in anywhere but America. Just because a few people made that assumption doesn't disprove that Drinker has bad observation.

[@dudewithachannel1163]

[part 3] "He didn't call slaves apes." Yes he did, you're just being pedantic again. And now for the part I knew he'd say in this video. Sandman tries to claim Birdman clipped Drinkers GvK trailer review and tried framing it as his review of the movie (like that somehow means something,) ignoring he was only using that clip to show Drinker can make wrong assumptions and randomly bring up race, something he demonstrated multiple times Drinker does all the time to keep his conspiracy grift going. I know your attention span is wrong but at least try to stay on topic here. 14:41 "Well, I never said it was from his review." Kind of like how you said "He never called slaves apes?" Nah only Drinker fans are that pedantic and hypocritical lol Also I'd like everyone to keep this moment in mind, he uses the exact same tactic later but shits on Birdman for supposedly using it here. That's not at all what he was doing with Nick Fuentes' tweet, he was showing racists were ruffled about the black woman in the trailer, and Drinker jumping in on the controversial topic was his attempt to create rage bait. It wasn't just "a totally different person," it was someone that preaches to the same group of people Drinker profits off of. You're honestly trying to pretend Drinker had a problem with a random group of people for... literally no other reason while entirely missing the point. And again, I'd like everyone to keep this in mind as he uses this exact same tactic later but shits on Birdman for supposedly using it here. 17:41 "yes, the clip of an unhinged coomer gremlin totally doesn't out you as a leftist." Well you can't really avoid making fun of that side when you talk about him for more than two minutes. We should be allowed to make fun of his audience lol "So someone calls your racist or a sexist, how are you supposed to prove this is untrue?" Here he is completely missing the point, yet again. Birdman lays his point out plainly and he's still playing dumb (at least I hope he's pretending.) 19:01 "Are you saying certain groups are above criticism?" Not sure why you ask that that considering you constantly try to defend Drinker's precious little echo chamber from whoever critiques it, or call critique of him sending his fans to bully someone "making a mountain out of a molehill." The answer is clearly no but you make exceptions for daddy Drinker. He then suggests women and minorities are hired as pawns for helping studios to attack white men, which is just dehumanizing and really shows how self important Sandman and Drinker fans like him are, they think white men are the normal while women and minorities are hired to be used as fodder to attack them. This, ladies and gentlemen is the type of white supremacist mentality you get after regularly subjecting yourself to Drinker and other race-baiting grifters like him.

[@dudewithachannel1163]

[part 3] pardon this part being placed here, part 2 and 3 got deleted and I can't comment anymore. "He didn't call slaves apes." Yes he did, you're just being pedantic again. And now for the part I knew he'd say in this video. Sandman tries to claim Birdman clipped Drinkers GvK trailer review and tried framing it as his review of the movie (like that somehow means something,) ignoring he was using that clip to show Drinker can make wrong assumptions and randomly bring up race, something Drinker does all the time to keep his conspiracy grift going. I know your attention span is short but at least try to stay on topic before bringing up a strawman. 14:41 "Well, I never said it was from his review." Kind of like how you said "He never called slaves apes?" Nah only Drinker fans are that pedantic and hypocritical lol Also I'd like everyone to keep this moment in mind, he uses the exact same tactic later but shits on Birdman for supposedly using it here. 16:38 That's not at all what he was doing with Nick Fuentes' tweet, he was showing racists were ruffled about the black woman in the trailer, and Drinker jumping in on the controversial topic was his attempt to create rage bait. It wasn't just "a totally different person," it was someone that preaches to the same group of people Drinker profits off of. You're honestly trying to pretend Drinker had a problem with a random group of people for... literally no other reason while entirely missing the point. And again, I'd like everyone to keep this in mind as he uses this exact same tactic later but shits on Birdman for supposedly using it here. 17:41 "yes, the clip of an unhinged coomer gremlin totally doesn't out you as a leftist." Well you can't really avoid making fun of that side when you talk about him for more than two minutes. We should be allowed to make fun of his audience lol "So someone calls you racist or a sexist, how are you supposed to prove this is untrue?" Here he is completely missing the point, yet again. Birdman lays his point out plainly and he's still playing dumb (at least I hope he's pretending.) 19:01 "Are you saying certain groups are above criticism?" Not sure why you ask that that considering you constantly try to defend Drinker's precious little echo chamber from whoever critiques it, or call critique of him sending his fans to bully someone "making a mountain out of a molehill." The answer is clearly no but you make exceptions for daddy Drinker. He then suggests women and minorities are hired as pawns for helping studios to attack white men, which is just dehumanizing and really shows how self important Sandman and Drinker fans like him are, they think white men are the normal while women and minorities are hired to be used as fodder to attack them. This, ladies and gentlemen is the type of white supremacist mentality you get after regularly subjecting yourself to Drinker and other race-baiting grifters like him. [part 4] Here's one I honestly thought Sandman would skip. It's such a blatant case of Drinker flip-flopping there's no way he'd have a way to defend it. His defense? 21:33-22:39 "Well yeah Drinker flip-flopped but that wasn't at all because of her political views, that just happened magically. Here's a clip of him saying he only missed her because she's hot (which she is) and my only proof he doesn't hate her is he didn't openly verbally harass her again." At best your point is weak as hell and at worst it's a shitty point backed up by even shittier evidence. I'm sure you tried your best but you should have just skipped this lol Also for no reason at all he mistakes Birdman's whole point of "Drinker doesn't like strong female characters" as "Drinker hates women" and tries to prove Drinker's not sexist. Cool story bro but you missed the whole point again. You're not looking too factually sound compared to Birdman. As for the Barbie movie, again, his point is just "Well yeah the trailer had evidence of feminist messaging, but it's not enough evidence for my picky standards. Also I didn't try to refute Drinker missing the existential crisis stuff so I guess Birdman was right about Drinkers media literacy being questionable." 25:22 is just him again missing the point so he can complain. He assumes Drinker changed the title only because he loved the show. Cool story bro but he also changed the title to hide his bad observation of marketing material, at this point I'm inclined to believe you watched Birdman's video on mute because you've been fighting this strawman for 13 agonizing minutes and still haven't refuted the actual point. If you have nothing to say, skip to when you do. 25:40 "You don't change your titles afterward to entice people?" Nope. Unlike Drinker, Birdman doesn't only stick by his opinions when it's profitable for him. Although saying that was Drinkers opinion should be in quotations. The man is a known flip-flopper and a liar :P 25:47 "Wow what a massive blow, Drinker thinking after one of the worst endings to a TV show in history that perhaps the follow-up wasn't looking too hot." So you admit Drinker has a bias when watching media then? Cool. Also admits he hasn't been paying attention to the actual point until now. You're not looking too factually sound compared to Birdman lol 26:00 Never mind, this is one I thought he'd skip. This guy is actually willing to defend sending mass hate and abuse to an innocent person, for nothing, or to quickly profit off some drama, and he chalks this reckless behavior up as "shit happens" and "not a big deal" when he blatantly can't misinterpret something or when he can't fight a strawman. Even if Drinker doesn't know if this was true or not, he should know better than to not do his homework before saying something that'll send his toxic sheep audience (and he knows you're sheep, it's why he even does this) to harass that person, which you conveniently cut said bullying tweets out of the video. I've disagreed with everything you've said in this video but you shouldn't be defending this type of action or try to sweep it under the rug with "Well it's believable because she's a woman." The fact Drinker hasn't even apologized for it should blatantly show he doesn't care what he does or who he hurts. Oh but Drinker isn’t obligated to listen to criticism. Give me a break. Again, this is the type of Defend The Brand mentality you get after regularly watching Drinker and other race-baiting grifters like him. Embarrassing behavior and concerning levels of brainwashing. Also don't think I missed your hypocrisy 27:47 "This quote belonging to her seems plausible since other actresses have had similar remarks" is literally the same exact thing Birdman was saying when comparing Drinkers take on the Minecraft Movie trailer with Nick Fuentes' take. Would it have stuck with you better if he said "Other race-baiters have had similar remarks?" Either we hold you to your own misread word and not compare someone's words to "random people on the internet" and discredit your defense here to Drinker, or you agree with Birdman's point that Drinker was hopping on the trend of hating on the black woman in the trailer... or you can just look like an idiot simp who will say anything to defend Drinker. That works for me too. Again, I'm sure you did your best but you probably should have just skipped this point lol

[@dudewithachannel1163]

[part 5] 29:29-30:59 I'll admit, he didn't cut in to blab so long I forgot I was watching this, thought I was watching a better video lol Makes me wonder why he had patience for that but not the intro 🤔 Anyway he once again missed the point, saying "Drinker is a complete buffoon" and "Drinker is incompetent" are two very different phrases. It's actually Sandman not being charitable here. Also he literally proves Birdman's guess that Drinker's fans don't care in this "defense." From the things Sandman has tried defending here though this is the least concerning thing they don't seem to care about lol Speaking of which he again tries to defend sending your violent audience to bully an innocent person. Yay. He says Drinker "didn't mean to send his fans" because he didn't blatantly say "go harass this person." Gotta love the pedantic jerks people like Drinker breed, the same hypocrites who use that same tactic to say "Drinker never blatantly said African slaves are apes" or to try and predict Birdman's response to your strawman argument with "Well I never said the clip was from Drinker's GvK movie review" *(which he actually plays again a minute after this part.)* They like to think they have a point by refusing to listen lol So I ask again, which is it? Should we assume with evidence someone has hidden motivations even when they don't flat-out say it or should we assume the best out of everyone simply because they didn't say the quiet part out loud? Or we can go with your third option: Drinker is always innocent, consume product. The cherry on top is he also misses the analogy, basically saying "You can't compare Holocron with Breaking Bad." There's a reason analogies are on IQ tests One really long strawman later... 36:28 "You spend your whole video bringing up absolute bullshit arguments and evidence and trying to act non partisan despite clearly showing it the whole way." Pot, meet kettle.

[@dudewithachannel1163]

[part 6] 37:27 (He's a political Idealog that complains almost exclusively about mainstream media to push rhetoric. In fact you'll never see him talking about or promoting anything that's not mainstream unless it's an attempt at a narrative push.) "Based on what? He reviews older films." Great. He sometimes talks about an older movie, hence why Birdman said almost. But can you name one instance of him promoting or critiquing a foreign film, one that's not in the mainstream like Squidgame? You can't? It's almost like he doesn't really care about film unless it's mainstream, something I already said to you before you ran away lol I love his blatant attempt at ignorance as to why Birdman mentioned South Korea's feminist propaganda. The Drinker's entire grift he pushes to people is he's their white knight trying to "stop woke media." But when Birdman says South Korea is leagues more feminist than Hollywood, which Drinker would thrive off of, Sandman tries to attack the low birth rates example and completely dodges the rest of the point. Sandman did this because he can't refute it, Drinker would have a field day with South Korea's "woke" media but he doesn't care because it's not mainstream. How's Drinker's whiskey-dick taste Sandman? 40:05 "But notice how he said semi reliable." Like how Birdman said he "complains almost exclusively about mainstream media?" It seems you're only hyper observant when defending Drinker 🤔 Anyway, he can't refute Drinker is the living embodiment of that meme, only agreeing with Rotten Tomatoes when it's convenient for him, like ignoring good scores for films like The Marvels Black Widow or Ant-Man 3 because you personally didn't like them, but considering the score of The Boys season 4 as fact because... you personally didn't like it. And again, ignores the possibility of review bombing when it's convenient lol 41:01 "Does that make you a dog, Birdman?" No, Sandman. You're the dog. You're the sad ignored little dog who's been trained to sit and roll over for a treat, and attack anyone the anti-woke mob deems worthy or anyone who dares critique it, both so your masters don't have to do it themselves and keep their grift and revenue safe. I highly suggest you stop watching Drinker and other anti-woke chuds like him. They're poisoning your brain to be a pedantic hypocritical lying simp who doesn't know how to really critique something to save your life. You can't even keep up with the things you're saying in this video/comments. The only thing written on your script is "Defend my king." In fact I'm sure if you do reply to this whole wall of text, half of it'll be mostly misreads or just "Nuh-uh's" and the other half will be outright missing the point to feel like you made a rebuddle. It's what your drunken daddy Drinker would do after all. If you don't like Birdman, that's totally fine. Just try to watch and do something worth your time instead of watching a ring of grifters from inside their web, to the point of dedicating a KZbin channel to defending people that harass innocents for profit. It's disgusting and shows why people like Drinker need to either go away or have their "fame" stripped from them. Birdman said it best, he hurts online discussion and gives online movie critics a bad name, no different than CinemaSins. He teaches you nothing but how to be a pedantic jerk who knows how to copy/paste nonsense talking points, and the internet would be better off without him. It's clear Drinker doesn't care about improving, because he doesn't care about his audience. The only way to stop this grifter is to expose his grift, which is why it's sad people like you are being used as his fodder trying to hide it again. And again, no. Drinker's only the biggest "critic" to his echo chamber. At best he speaks to .1% of film audiences and will only be remembered as a nobody grifter with a fake sounding Scottish accent, since more and more people are catching onto his content for the slop it is. And to anyone reading this far, first of all thank you, second if you looked through all that I said and still think Sandman's in the right and Drinker is a good and honest content creator/critic who's only here to spread the truth, you're really beyond saving until Drinker's grift dries up and we all can move on from him. That's all I've got for today. Go away now.

[@johnnycrown5097]

The glass onion wasn't a mistake by drinker... The idea drinker was trying to tell us is that RJ was doing whodunnit wrong and was hiding the clues from the audience making it look like he was pulling things from the ether... If he'd shown the audience the girl in the first clip, our deduction would have been totally different, instead he made it look like blank was alone and the tree snap could easily be mistaken has being caused by blank so the later scene added the girl in as the cause... These people and their media literacy can't even understand the point of a criticism...

[@jeremyusreevu237]

I didn't even hear the tree snap when I first watched the movie.

[@johnnycrown5097]

@@jeremyusreevu237 it's how he even said it... You know, it's normally "akshuallee", but his was "obfiouslee", as if we've got our ears to a woofer or something...

[@misterjkplays3920]

Check out the video by fair is fair called the critical drinker was right about the scene in glass onion

[@trentroberts6736]

I understand why Birdsoy made his DDS hit piece in the first place. I checked his Twitter and there’s a screenshot where his channel hit 200K in September 2022. Now it’s 239K+. His channel’s fucking dead yo.

[@johnrichardson8903]

14:41 Just wanted you to know that someone named Aristocratic Utensil did a response to Birdman's video, made the same point about the trailer, then Birdman responded and...you're right. That's literally what he did. "I would ask where anyone said that was a full review." You called it.

[@dudewithachannel1163]

He said a little more than that but sure cherrypick his words and pretend Sandman called what he'd say lol

[@Pablosaurus-zf2yt]

@@dudewithachannel1163 That is damn near his exact words.

[@dudewithachannel1163]

@@Pablosaurus-zf2yt, cut out from a full point, which is called cherrypicking

[@ManENames]

You know what would be really ironic? If you take Birdman's video, replace Critical Drinker with Anita Sarkessian and it'll be the exact same response. Anita did everything what Birdman described and that makes it ironic.

[@Bonzi_Buddy]

I got recommended his video exactly because of him attacking Critical Drinker so he is clout chasing by attacking him weather he wants to admit it or not. I always give people a chance to make their case but it doesn't take long to know where they are coming from. Critical Drinker mocks woke Hollywood, this th3birdman defends it. That's pretty much it. Then I decided to see how his reviews are. Within about a 60 second span he gives information about his personality and life that immediately confirms why I wouldn't like someone like him. He's insufferable. "I like musicals, I am a band guy (HS band, not cool rock band)".... So yeah, who cares. Again, I don't mind insight into someone's background or personal life but sometimes that insight is not endearing and relatable but rather the opposite.

[@mysteriouscapitalist4033]

He calls the Drinker's content slop. Bold words for the youtuber that milked CinemaSins constantly.

[@sandmancinema6859]

If it were a couple of videos okay. But the fact its his bread and butter is just funny. No body has taken Cinemasins serious in a decade.

[@HTHAMMACK1]

Drinker is trash.

[@sandmancinema6859]

@@HTHAMMACK1 Wow what an articulate and well reasoned argument. My mind is changed.

[@dudewithachannel1163]

Which is why he takes breaks from sinning their content to focus on other content, like calling out grifters like Drinker

[@dudewithachannel1163]

​@@sandmancinema6859, to be fair, you did get brainwashed by "Go woke go broke" when that's a lie. At least "Drinker is Trash" is the truth said in fewer words :P

[@DanTheMan13-f7g]

I guess you can say Th3Birdman did what Cinemasins do best... make small points and overblow them. No, seriously, I'm BAFFLED by the fact he only managed to find ONE sin in each review and make it seem like he destroyed Critical Drinker. I don't even watch CD yet even I can see that this is by far the worst video from Th3Birdman. First, citing Destiny... Destiny... if your reliable source is Destiny, Vaush or Hasan... you already lost the battle, Th3Birdman Second, he insistingly claims that no one should take CD seriously and that he's not a movie review... while he doesn't adress anything significant in any of said reviews. Like seriously of ALL the things to get mad at CD's review of King Kong VS Godzilla... you chose a joke, a JOKE about King Kong being chained and being sent on a boat... bruh... you poke fun at different types of people all the bloody time, Th3Birdman, shouldn't YOU be good at separating innocent jokes from actual claims? Or is it only okay for you to do it? Even then he never proved CD to be just politically biased and not a review critic. He doesn't show how CD poorly reviews a movie, how he focuses more on political aspects rather than writing, characters, setting, music and other aspects of the movie. No, he just insists that claim is true without citing any proof. Three, Korean media... Th3Birdman... do YOU cover that media? Do ANY of the American reviewers care or want to cover the media that might not be even available or that doesn't have a sub? No? Well then don't hold Critical Drinker to such ridiculous standards, you numbhead. Four, Critical Drinker's tweet about Minecraft... ... who is a racist one again? Because out of the two only Th3Birdman brought up race. Critical Drinker brought up modern entertainment, not the race of the character, soooooooo... Five, Gina Carano's case... funny how he shows the clip that destroys his point entirely. Never in said clip CD said that Gina Carano was a great actress in his opinion, just that he was sorry about what happened to her as a person who got kicked out from Disney. Even if he complimented her as an actress.. so what? People can't change an opinion on the performance? I'll probably leave a similar comment to his video and see how he would respond

[@NortonFort59]

Th3Birdman called....he is still waiting for those receipts.....

[@heritortheory6201]

He doesn't like the flavor of dog vomit, he must not like dogs. Yeah sure guy.

[@smd1876]

They always lie and manipulate their audience yet they blame Drinker and co

[@sandmancinema6859]

The irony is so strong considering everything he calls Drinker he does in this video.

[@rickr9111]

Yeah that video next his response to utensil is utter crap. He acts like a tough guy and an intellectual when he isn’t.

[@DannyKnightblade45]

Birdman is very disingenuous. His take on The Critical Drinker's view on Gina Carano, for example. At no point did The Drinker say he hated Gina Carano or women in general. Drinker simply said that he didn't like her as an actor. Even when he showed support of her, he did not claim she was a great actress.

[@sandmancinema6859]

It was literally ten seconds and he acts like he cussed her out. But what do you expect the whole video was a joke.

[@tesytes318]

Lol 😢

[@trentroberts6736]

Drinker Derangement Syndrome is real.

[@sandmancinema6859]

I mean these are the same type of people getting mad at Jermey Jahns for reviewing "Am I A Racist."

[@smd1876]

Yeah Birdmans video is a Joke.

[@sandmancinema6859]

And yet his comment section are all acting like its a world class takedown. Its so sad.

[@Joshy-vs2to]

This channel is just a engagement farm look at the shorts he posts and This is clear rage bait

[@sandmancinema6859]

This guy is clearly a hater with terrible grammar.

[@MisterDriskul]

My God! Using facts and logic to call out Drinkster. Does this guy not care about how this makes CD feels. My God. What has this world come to? This Birdman has no soul.

[@sandmancinema6859]

Which ones were that? Saying Barbie was obviously going to be radically feminist because they showed flat feet in the trailer. Or lying that Drinker hated Gina Carano. Or that Drinker only cares about mainstream films when he has a whole second channel where he regularly reviews older or smaller films. Or because he made a tweet saying the Minecraft looks bad. That the tweet was obviously racist. Those facts and logic?

[@MisterDriskul]

​@@sandmancinema6859 Apparently Bird "No Soul" Man and a lot of these weirdos are saying stuff like Drinkster's too stupid for a film critic not to check the trailer or who directed Barbie, who is a full blown feminist. Or with Gina, CD's complaining about her terrible acting and why they even cast her in the first place. But months later he praises her like a queen for having the same political beliefs that he has. Why doesn't he put the older and smaller film reviews on his main channel if he keeps ranting about mainstream films so much? His second channel still has mainstream film reviews, more than it does for smaller films. And the Minecraft tweet, he wasn't tweeting that it was bad, he tweeted "If modern entertainment was a single image" and knowing him, we know the implication. These weirdos have no fact and logic to take out our god. Praise Drinkster brothers

[@sandmancinema6859]

@@MisterDriskul First it doesn’t sound like you watched my video where I refuted all of Bird is the words terrible “evidence.” So because someone is a feminist that means it’s definitely going to be feminist propaganda? And you mean the trailer that said “if you love Barbie, this film is for you.” “And if you hate Barbie, this is the film for you.” And sold itself as a comedy musical. Oh yes the 10 seconds that definitely proves he hates Gina. Did you not know there was 2 videos inbetween the season 1 review where he ribbed her a bit and the one Birdman called a puff piece. Where he said he’s a fan of her in the season 2 trailer review. And didn’t say anything negative about her in the season 2 review. So first it was Drinker doesn’t cover non mainstream movies. Now you moved the goalpost to but he only puts it on his second channel. Because that’s best for the analytics. And considering his second channel has twice as many subs as Birdman. To complain makes you look jealous. So Mr Facts and Logic has to go off an implication to make an accusation that the tweet was racist. Wow now that is some grade A evidence. Dude thanks for the laughs.

[@MisterDriskul]

@@sandmancinema6859 Whoa! We're on the same side here brother. It's these haters that are saying those stuff against Drinkster man. We got to look out for him against these demons. Praise Drinky!!!

[@sandmancinema6859]

@@MisterDriskul Sorry I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or not. The way you write can be read passive aggressive.

[@RacerC45]

Also you also a bigot?

[@sandmancinema6859]

Are you trying to ask am I also a bigot? No, I just don't like progressive ideology rammed down my throat. Just like I'm sure you wouldn't like it if a far right ideology was rammed down yours.

[@RacerC45]

@@sandmancinema6859 So you think blacks, minorities, gays, and trans people shouldn't be in media?

[@sandmancinema6859]

@@RacerC45 I guess you ignored the part where I said "rammed down my throat." Which is the problem with woke entertainment. They want to preach and force in a message or diversity. Both in front of and behind the camera. Like with She Hulk or Velma.

[@RacerC45]

@@sandmancinema6859 So would you call shows like Sailor Moon, Steven Universe, Craig of the Creek, or Mission Hill "woke" because they feature gay characters or a black character or a female character as a protagonist? What makes you think shows like Drawn Together or South Park handled homosexuality better? Also what message? I don't understand that.

[@sandmancinema6859]

@@RacerC45 I haven’t seen most of those shows. Ive seen a little of Steven Universe. And remember the PSA where a women says don’t be racist. The PSA was the most pandering thing Ive ever seen. Which is a hallmark of woke entertainment. Well considering Hollywood is left. It would be progressive messages. And again it’s when those messages are forced. Ham fisted and only preach to the converted. The right does this with Christian movies like God Is Not Dead And Left Behind. Drawn Together and South Park are over the top comedies with loads of satire. Now if the satire only made fun of one side. Like Velma then it would be. Do you really not understand this or are you being willfully obtuse?