MovieChat Forums > cyguration
cyguration (3803)
Posts
Let's be honest, most average women would love to be Choi's slave...
Why Was Wu Jing Depicted As Such A Beta Male In This?
Anyone feel John Cena and his subplot was more engaging than the main story?
Why Do Driving Movies Front-Load The Movie With The Best Chase Scene?
A surrealistic prequel to Falling Down....
Quintessentially 90s But Extremely Prescient
Started so strong but kind of petered out....
Fascinating film about the MPLA but it felt fractured...
Actual espionage...
Like The Man From Nowhere But Ramped Up To 11
View all posts >
Replies
<blockquote>Yes, I know. But he is helping raise the next generation.</blockquote>
That does nothing to proliferate the next generation, since he's a genetic dead-end.
<blockquote>She was Chancellor of Germany for 16 years. That shows she obviously has leadership skills. Macron has no kids either. Shinzo Abe didn't.</blockquote>
Ha, you kind of help prove my points for me. She completely ruined the country, let in untold amounts of criminal rape gangs who have run rampant through the major cities. She also did nothing to proliferate her own lineage, basically highlighting my point: they help kill off their own people with good ends. Macron has also completely ruined France:
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240315-eu-proposes-easing-environmental-rules-defuse-farmers-protests
https://www.france24.com/en/france/20231228-riots-protests-and-climate-uprisings-2023-was-a-tumultuous-year-in-france
<blockquote>Every leader of the UK, for instance, has had kids </blockquote>
Leaders simply having kids doesn't correct the birth rates:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/23/birthrate-in-uk-falls-to-record-low-as-campaigners-say-procreation-is-a-luxury
<blockquote>Gunna have to explain to me how this works.</blockquote>
Gays can't procreate, only indoctrinate. Natural selection wants them gone.
<blockquote>so it's not to say that 35% of lesbian women get that in every relationship they have.</blockquote>
It's eight times higher per capita, despite them being 1.7% of the populace:
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvsogi1720.pdf
<blockquote>The show must specifically be trying to say that homosexual people are evil.</blockquote>
Funny you equate honesty with evil. Says a lot about what you think about homosexuals.
<blockquote> Aaron in TWD adopts a child.</blockquote>
Adoption isn't creating more humans; in a world where people are rapidly diminishing and the population is on the brink of extinction, adoption is futile.
<blockquote> Are you gunna claim that Angela Merkel was an incapable leader? </blockquote>
Absolutely. This happened on her watch because she opened the borders:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3684302/1-200-German-women-sexually-assaulted-New-Year-s-Eve-Cologne-elsewhere.html
<blockquote>Debateable.</blockquote>
Every measurable metric of societal/cultural success with them in charge is plummeting. No debates required.
<blockquote>So two men having a relationship is a "degenerate fetish" in itself? Based on what evidence do you claim this?</blockquote>
Natural selection.
<blockquote>You reject any depiction of a gay person that doesn't basically write then as depressed, diseased scum.</blockquote>
It's funny that even you think that dishonest propaganda is devoid of such things. Says a lot, no?
<blockquote>You would need to provide data that suggest the majority of homosexual relationships have abuse in them.</blockquote>
https://archive.ph/rXYPi
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/domestic-violence-a-silent-epidemic-in-gay-relationships-20150416-1mm4hg.html
https://www.advocate.com/crime/2014/09/04/2-studies-prove-domestic-violence-lgbt-issue
Must sting when the data comes from pro-gay institutions?
<blockquote>I don't have a problem with a show depicting a particular homosexual relationship as abusive, or shows that deal with STDs in the homosexual community (and many do this)</blockquote>
Except you were unable to name one show that has homosexual abuse or depicting homosexual STDs in a negative light. Try again.
<blockquote>And there's no reason to think families have anything to do with it</blockquote>
Yes, because in an apocalyptic setting, you need to create more humans somehow.
<blockquote>There are plenty of leaders right now in society that are homosexual or hetersoexual, but never had children. </blockquote>
Exactly, and they are part of the reason why the Anglosphere nations are imploding. Thank you for proving my point.
<blockquote> You mean winning elections? They are literally leaders, and able to do so.</blockquote>
...leading society into a cesspit yes.
<blockquote>Your data did not propose that the vast majority of gay men have STDs, and of those that do, have them to the point of being unable to do anything or need repeated medical attention.</blockquote>
Many of the infections and diseases -- when left untreated -- can metastasize into more dangerous ailments. And yes, the data did show that more than average suffer from them.
<blockquote>Okay, so is Thailand and Phillipines woke?</blockquote>
The ones promoting degenerate fetishes are.
<blockquote>Is it wrong if a TV show depicts a gay couple as a normal couple with no relationship issues, and without STDs?</blockquote>
It's obviously dishonest propaganda.
<blockquote>Do you believe any gay person that is not depicting as being seriously depressed, or riddled with STDs is inherently "propagandised"?</blockquote>
If it's not correlated to real world statistical averages, of course.
<blockquote>are you actually arguing that the creators wrote it deliberately, specifically, to dissuade people from wanting to have heterosexual relationships?</blockquote>
You need to ask them; they depicted heterosexual relationships antipodes to how the rest of media depicts homosexual relationships. Why are you so incensed about people wanting homosexual relationships to be depicted honestly, yet so defensive about wanting to see heterosexual relationships being depicted negatively? How do you reconcile this?
I can see why critics didn't like it, because it pointed out things that directly contradict the Left's propaganda: blacks can be racist (duh), some races are born with unfavourable and undesirable traits (duh), some races are better than others in some areas (duh).
The movie was unapologetic about this -- taking real-world sociopolitical talking points and putting a fantasy spin on it. I'm kind of surprised someone as cucked as Will Smith would have starred in such a film. Nevertheless, I'm even more shocked Netflix signed off on a sequel... maybe they need actual good movies to counter all the slop they've been filling their platform with?
Yeah the movie had me pegging it at an 8 out of 10 up until the main plot device kicked in with the rival antagonist hacker, and then it promptly dropped down to a 6. It actually probably would have been a more consistent and better film had she just been the killer all along. Having it on the Straight, White-Male incel was the most Netflix plot-twist ever, and completely ruined the film and also didn't make a whole lot of sense. He could have just as easily met her doing what Clive Owen did and he wouldn't have had to go through all of those bodies and roundabout murder-sprees to meet.
<blockquote>Why would they not be leaders? Based on what evidence?</blockquote>
You need to be healthy, levelheaded and capable of putting families first. How do they create families?
<blockquote>Gay people right now, in real life are leaders.</blockquote>
This is because we live in the age of decadence where agendas put them in position of power.
<blockquote>Data is data, and your sources are completely outdated</blockquote>
Data is relevant until proven otherwise. Feel free to prove the data wrong. Hitherto, it is still relevant.
<blockquote>They are popular.</blockquote>
Fetishes can be popular.
<blockquote>Still not answering my question:</blockquote>
What question?
<blockquote>Any show that doesn't depict homosexuality negatively, according to you, is not treating it "honestly".</blockquote>
You said that not me. The fact you equate honest depictions of that lifestyle with negativity says more about how you perceive that lifestyle than any interpretation of the data I've made.
<blockquote>Do you believe any gay person that is not depicting as being seriously depressed, or riddled with STDs is inherently "propagandised"?</blockquote>
Only depicting "positive" portrayals is propaganda.
<blockquote>Does Big Little Lies literally argue, and try to push the idea that people should not go into heterosexual relationships?</blockquote>
It definitely depicts heterosexual relationships as bad. How do you reconcile that?
<blockquote>The Walking Dead didn't portray a "majority". It portrayed like up to 10 LGBT people over the cause of its run.</blockquote>
They absolutely would not be leaders, and absolutely would not last long. And hilariously enough, the show seemed to take a more realistic approach with obese people -- why is that?
<blockquote>Data is data, and your sources are completely outdated</blockquote>
Not for the points that have been made, which are irrefutable.
<blockquote>As I said, these shows literally win awards. Like you know Heartstopper in the UK?</blockquote>
That means they're trying to normalise aberrant behaviour; so you just proved another one of my points.
<blockquote>Any show that doesn't depict homosexuality negatively, according to you, is not treating it "honestly".</blockquote>
None of the shows align with real-world data, which means they're focusing on propaganda, which you seem to be okay with.
<blockquote>“Yes, because female sexuality isn’t supposed actually want anything but to be had and that feels like it’s protruding in a way that might be annoying, but f*** you.”</blockquote>
Also this makes absolutely no sense what she's saying, because female sexuality is built around female biology, which means they NEED an eggplant to fertilise the egg. So we have someone so delusional and trapped in an aberrant lifestyle that she's actively fighting against the whole purpose of her biological design.
She'll be 40, angry, alone, and miserable, assuming she doesn't join the 41% club.
<blockquote>So even if it is the majority, then what's the problem with LGBT people in an apocalyptic setting?</blockquote>
Because majority is still majority; just like most obese people wouldn't survive in the apocalypse for obvious reasons.
<blockquote>You mean from data from 1980 (regarding gonorrhea)?</blockquote>
Data is data; plus you didn't address the other transmission rates for other infections and diseases for gay and bi men. Have at it.
<blockquote>Many are just, or could be in open relationships or not attached to any particular partner. </blockquote>
That's called cheating.
<blockquote>Are you going to call those countries woke? </blockquote>
So long as the fetish isn't promoted prominently in the mainstream, it's a still a fetish.
<blockquote>How does Big Little Lies depict heterosexuality as dangerous? </blockquote>
You should watch it.
<blockquote>Make up your mind.</blockquote>
Majority isn't all.
<blockquote>You have not provided data that demonstrates this.</blockquote>
Actually, I did. 30% of gay men suffering from gonorrhea, while 43% for bi-men and nearly 50% for gay men had been pegged for sexual disparities involving frequency of issues.
<blockquote> I showed shows that deal with those issues, but you reject them because they don't depict homosexuals in a hateful light.</blockquote>
They don't depict them in an honest light; in fact, you've yet to name one show that does, thus proving my point.
<blockquote>
Are you going to bother backing any of this up with any statistical data?</blockquote>
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/article_files/4315111.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874216/
<blockquote>They aren't fetish in the Phillipines or Thailand, ironically. They win national awards. Are you going to call those countries woke?</blockquote>
It's still a fetish by definition.
<blockquote>What shows specifically depict heterosexual relationships negatively to the point that they imply that heterosexual relationships are innately dangerous?</blockquote>
Big Little Lies, for one. But you have done nothing but dodge questions and equivocate when it comes to naming just one show that depicts homosexuality honestly. Quite telling, no?
View all replies >