NotYourNPC's Reviews
Escaped Its Retard Creator's Agenda
Gravity Falls ain't the woke apocalypse some libtards wish it was, but damn if its creator Alex Hirsch—that sniveling propagandist—didn't try his hardest to turn it into a rainbow-slathered indoctrination camp for kids. On the surface, this 2012-2016 Disney gem is a breath of fresh air in today's preachy cartoon hellscape. The show's got sharp humor, twisty mysteries that actually pay off, and zero of that forced agenda slop that makes modern shows unwatchable. No wonder conservatives dig it—it's family-friendly fun without the lectures.
Now, where this show really shines (and Hirsch gets rightfully roasted) is what it could've been if that soy-raged warrior got his way. This whiny libtard bitched about Disney being too "straight" and censoring his precious LGBTQ+ dreams. He wanted a full-on lesbian granny smooch in "The Love God" episode—just background pandering to rack up that gay ratio and force "representation" down kids throats. Disney axed it, and good riddance; it'd turn a fun love-spell romp into inclusivity slop. Dude also had wet fantasies of queering the kids: bisexual hints for Dipper or fluid vibes for Mabel. Which Disney ofcourse rejected, that led to Hirsch whining about rewriting them to avoid rainbow overload. If this cuck had full reins, Gravity Falls would've been a preachy dumpster fire—exceeding gay ratios, pandering inclusivity, maybe even infinity gender nonsense—ruining a fun mystery show with Tumblr-tier propaganda.
In the end, the show dodged most bullets, making it a solid watch for anti-woke folks who crave clever plots without the rot. Killer voices (Jason Ritter's Dipper nails the nerd angst, Kristen Schaal's Mabel is chaotic joy), and Stan's grizzled wisdom hits home. But Hirsch's baggage taints it—like knowing your burger was almost vegan. Woke Score: 2/10 (subtle stains, but creator's actual intent spikes the threat). Watchability for conservatives: 8/10—binge it, but gag at what almost was. Show that barely escaped the libtard abyss.
Created: 09-15-2025
Official Anime for Well-Adjusted Cuck
**Vinland Saga Season 2 is a pathetic, woke, preachy dumpster fire** that spits on the legacy of its first season. This isn't a nuanced take; it's a fact for anyone with a functioning brain and a pair of eyes.
The show had a golden opportunity to ask hard questions. What is worth killing for? How do you lead when peace is a weakness? What do you do when you can't run? Instead, creator chickened out and delivered **two-cents-deep, soy-infused propaganda** that would make a kindergarten peace council cringe.
Remember Thorfinn? The feral, revenge-driven badass from Season 1? Yeah, They took his character and turned him into a walking, talking Hallmark card about peace. It's not that he changed—it's that he got *neutered*. Every time he opens his mouth now, it's just another limp-wristed speech about turning the other cheek like dollar store gandhi. Dude's entire personality now is "Killing Is Bad, M'kay?", he doesn’t have convictions; he has Pinterest quotes. He doesn’t have a moral compass; he has a guilt complex dressed up as enlightenment. The charmingly honest, if dumb, shonen protagonist is gone. In his place is a **pacifist cuck** who just spews platitudes while the world burns around him.
The show also doesn’t trust you to grasp its galaxy-brain message, so it rams it down your throat. We get it. Killing bad. Peace good. But the way it’s executed is so laughably naive it feels like it was written by a homeschooled teenager who just discovered anarcho-pacifism on Tumblr. There’s a scene—and I swear I’m not making this up—where a group of armed, bloodthirsty raiders are about to storm a hut where a woman is giving birth. The show’s big-brain solution? Have some **beta simp stand in the doorway and politely say “no”.** And when he gets stabbed for his trouble, he just… doesn’t die. Because his newfound passivity gives him literal plot armor. The invaders then piss themselves and run away because the power of… *saying no*… was just too strong. **Gee, that is genius. Why hasn’t anyone thought of that before?**
As if that wasn't enough, they had to double down by introducing **Hild**, a walking, talking girlboss manifesto. She exists for one reason: to hold a crossbow to Thorfinn's head and remind him—and by extention us, the audience—what a **pathetic, obedient little bitch** he's become. She’s a Mary Sue with a tragic backstory™ , she has all the agency, all the power, and none of the depth. She’s a feminist revenge fantasy inserted into a Viking saga, and it shows. She could kill Thorfinn at any moment, and the only reason she doesn’t is so the writers can keep their **precious little pacifist mascot** around to keep lecturing us, effectively neutering any remaining shred of agency or respect he had left. Chef's fucking kiss.
Season 2 is the ultimate litmus test. If you unironically think this is “peak fiction” or “mature storytelling,” you’re beyond saving. it’s ideological garbage masquerading as art. It’s “If you kill your enemies, they win” repackaged for the Blue-Haired Avenger crowd.
Created: 09-04-2025
Sorry, But 'Barbie' Is Woke—Here's Why
Alright, let’s talk about this take above that *Barbie* isn’t a woke movie. First of all, I get why someone might walk away from *Barbie* thinking it's just a movie about choice and balance. But honestly, I think the above review is giving it way too much credit. I watched the same movie, and I came out of it feeling like I’d just sat through a two-hour lecture dressed in pink d̶i̶a̶r̶r̶h̶e̶a̶ glitter. Let’s break this down.
First, the opening scene. The reviewer says the little girls smashing their baby dolls isn’t anti-motherhood—it’s about choice. But come on. The symbolism isn’t exactly subtle. Smashing traditional dolls isn’t presented as one choice among many; it’s framed as liberation from an outdated system. The visual language is aggressive, not neutral. If the message was simply about expanding options, why not show a girl gently setting down her doll to pick up a Barbie? The scene feels less like celebrating choice and more like making a statement: the old way—the nurturing, maternal path—is something to break free from.
Then there’s the claim that the movie doesn’t promote female superiority because it critiques both matriarchy and patriarchy. On the surface, yeah, Barbieland ends with talk of sharing power. But let’s be honest—most of the runtime is spent making patriarchy look ridiculous and oppressive, while the Barbie-dominated world is portrayed as vibrant, fun, and right… until the Kens “mess it up.” When the Kens take over, it’s depicted as a nightmare of testosterone-fueled nonsense. But when the Barbies rule? It’s just how things are—and the movie wants you to laugh *at* the Kens, not with them. The movie only introduces the idea that “matriarchy is bad too” *after* it has spent an hour making its point that patriarchy is the ultimate evil. It’s a classic bait-and-switch: they get to have their cake and eat it too. They get to indulge in the female power fantasy and then pretend to be even-handed by saying “see? Both are bad!”.
And Ken’s arc? The reviewer says it’s about him learning he doesn’t need validation from Barbie—that he’s “Kenough.” But did we watch the same ending? Ken’s entire sense of worth is still tied to Barbie’s approval. She’s the one who tells him he’s enough. She’s still the gatekeeper of his validation. That isn’t empowerment—it’s condescension. A truly non-woke message would’ve had Ken discovering his own purpose completely apart from Barbie or her world. Instead, he ends up right where he started—just slightly more self-aware, but still living in her shadow. It’s a superficial resolution that doesn’t challenge the power structure at all. It just makes the dominant group feel better about themselves.
The reviewer says people who call this movie woke walked in with preconceived notions. I’d argue the opposite. The movie *wants* you to think it’s deep and balanced so you can feel good about agreeing with it. It’s packed with feminist buzzwords and shallow critiques of patriarchy that are designed to sound profound but fall apart under the slightest scrutiny. It reduces complex societal issues to a simple, candy-colored battle of the genders where one side is inherently righteous and the other is a joke.
So no, the other reviewers calling it *woke* didn't 'miss the point'—they recognized the movie's agenda perfectly. it’s a movie that pretends to be about balance while thoroughly endorsing a very specific, very modern worldview. It uses the language of inclusion to deliver a one-sided message. That’s the definition of woke. It’s not a film about choice; it’s a film about trading one set of stereotypes for another, all while pretending it’s evolved. It’s okay if the above reviewer liked it, but let’s not pretend it’s something it’s not.
Created: 09-02-2025
