MovieChat Forums > Geff > Replies
Geff's Replies
In the past incels would have been culled due to selective pressures before reaching adulthood and therefore incelhood. I thought I made this clear, but apparently not.
I literally said: "In past times these people would have been culled naturally."
And then you criticize me fore calling you small brained...
Actually, his mother wanted him to want to be happy and make people laugh.
I'll try to explain. Although based on your text you might be too small brained to understand anything I say.
The amount of humans in the world is a novelty. In no other time throughout history has so many humans inhabited the planet simultaneously. Throughout history people were culled by disease and war. Due to improvements in healthcare and relative infrequency of high death count wars, the culling mechanism has failed. We are seeing more and more people parasitically reliant on the things that keep them alive and sane such as healthcare and mental health medication. In past times these people would have been culled naturally. So to answer the question "why now?", that is why.
But, go ahead and put your dick in a hole and imagine that you've solved something.
What race are you?
Everyone who disagees with me is a shill. I'm also so low IQ that I cannot spell shill properly.
What race are you?
>I guess at a high level it's not a dissimilar story.
No, on a shallow level it's not a dissimilar story. On a high level it is a very dissimilar story.
Roy's father wants to find God. Colonel Kurtz and the Captain both already discovered that there is no God. Their reaction to this discovery was the rage that Roy talks about. But, Roy does not want to become that guy as he said himself. Ad Astra is a story of a redemptive arch, Roy joins the masses of shallow materialists because that is all that's left without God. Colonel Kurtz's and Captain's reactions are more authentic. They became raging monkeys.
Comedy in general is a trash genre in a 1-2 hour film format. Comedy works okay in shorts or in standup, but even then I wouldn't pay to see comedy because it's degenerate physical pleasure seeking. There is no depth or meaning to comedy, you are just chasing a high in the form of laughter. Laughter is a completely illogical act just like sex, you don't will pleasure from it. Your DNA causes this involuntary response. You are a slave lacking free will.
Furthermore, who the heck wants to go a theatre to listen to blacks and immigrants cackle for 2 hours?
Ruth Negga was incredible in this film. The scene where she is not allowed into the recording studio is one of the best scenes in the film.
That being said, she played her role and she was intentionally sidelined if you notice the internal messaging. I don't see how more scenes with her would have served the story. The story largely revolves around Roy and his father. You could say it's unfair because it does not acknowledge the contribution of women in the act of creation, but it is secretly alluded to that this is largely caused by societal trends.
It's the <i>father</i>, son and the holy spirit. Not father and mother.
Why even watch movies? Just watch trailers.
Furthermore, why do you think that continuation of existence is 'good'? It's a result of natural selection, your DNA predisposes you to think this. Similarly why do I want to be free the tyranny of DNA, this too is a result of DNA predisposing me to value freedom because freedom too can have evolutionary benefits. It's a paradox. As long as one is alive it is impossible to escape the tyranny of DNA.
"The overly introspective type will have doubt, hesitate when action is needed and fail to protect his family,tribe,nation."
You have manufactured a moral axiom that protecting your family, your tribe and your nation is "good". And you assume that I harbor the same moral axiom without even wondering whether you need to justify your moral axiom. This is fair, as all moral axioms are ultimately unjustifiable, but I'm not sure that you understand this, and I'm not sure than you understand that I can have different moral axioms that can contradict yours.
'Why' should I care about the family the tribe and the collective. You might make the argument that it is good in order to propagate my DNA. But, my DNA isn't me and I'm not my DNA. My DNA is only me when it is in <i>my</i> body. My son may have a part of my DNA, but he isn't me. A clone of mine might have all of my DNA, but he too isn't me. Why do I owe these things my loyalty? I am going to die and no amount of DNA propagation will lead to <i>my</i> immortality. I might have dozens of children like Genghis Khan, but still I'm mortal.
At some point a reflective person asks the question: Do I have agency or am I slave to my DNA. If my DNA tells me to collide my genitals with members of the opposite sex in order to propagate my DNA must I acquiesce? And why? Why do I owe this action to me DNA, how does it serve <i>me</i> as I am not my DNA? What stake do I have not only in my DNA at the most fundamental level, but also what stake do I have in my family, tribe, nation or the human race. If the human race became extinct a moment after my death, would I be upset? Ofcourse not, because there wouldn't even be a me there to be upset or not upset.
If I make an army of clones with my DNA and I die, am i continuing to live? No, because my death is the end of my subjective experience. All your loyalty towards the collective is ultimately caused by a desire to be immortal.
*Remembers Icarus 1*
Your position is enlightening about how minds other than mine work. I personally would never resist internal reflection for fear of society's manufactured perceptions towards the act of internal reflection. This is largely because as a free man, what others think of me is not a variable in my considerations. If it's true what you say, that society will label you as "effeminate" for the act of thinking (I have doubts as to the accuracy of this statement), I would not care either way because I do not allow the preconceptions of others to influence my freedom to think about the things that <i>I</i> want to think about.
The question then I pose to you: are you a free being with personal agency, or are you an NPC to be programmed by society?
"Men are interested in how things work, were as women are interested in how people work."
I largely agree with this statement. I ask you the question, what is a "thing" and what is a "person". People are things too, or they too are "objects", but the word "person" takes on some additional made up meanings. Men are able to conceptualize people as objects whereas women are unable to this, women have to interweave society's views on what is a"person" into each individual. The woman thinks that "people" have "human rights" and they are capable of "love" etc. The man recognizes that "human rights" and "love" are ideas that are artificially invented by a collective mass of people, they are not objective truths. The woman is more limited in her capacity to think because she has created barriers to thought because of the prevailing trends of society. In this regard, the true "effeminate" is the one who is not free to think and who is a slave to society.
As a linguist, I'm sure Pinker is aware about the word "thing" and its differences with the word "person". "person" is simply a "thing" with additional meanings tagged on by tradition and society.
Are you making a statement or are you asking a question? If you are asking a question use a question mark. If you are making a statement, I don't understand the purpose of it.
I don't know if that's a question. Whether or not I liked it is not a relevant factor. Likes and dislikes are subjective. Not everyone has to like the same things.
I didn't like Avatar, yet a lot of people liked it a lot. I do judge them for liking it, just as you might judge me for not liking it.
I didn't see it has hokey. Especially considering that, in my view, the movie is largely an internal struggle of acceptance. Acceptance that there is no God and we are alone, there is no greater purpose or meaning and the acceptance that Roy's creator, his father, has been chasing a non-existent creator for his entire life instead of paying attention to his creation. At the prospect of these realizations some become depraved and resort to their animal natures in defiant desperation. The monologue following, the potential rescue mission is crucial to understanding this.
The monologue upon first reaching the civilian base at the moon is also important. He mentions only that if his Dad could see it now, he would tear it all down. He seems to be empathetic towards his father's position this early in the film, but there is a hint of doubt in his voice. Without any purpose or meaning, without any God to seek after, shallow materialism is all there is.
Roy is a dynamic character in the film. At first is he is unable to accept that maybe his father is not the hero he was touted to be. At first he rejected the idea that his father may still be living and he thought he was being lied to. He thought that the team was lying to ruin his father's reputation. Slowly throughout the film he began to take his father off that pedestal. An allegory for the slow realization that God does not exist. Infact, throughout the film his father is an allegory for God. God left him after he created him and God was silent no matter how much he called out.
After the failed rescue episode, He mentions that that the rage in his father is inside him too. What is he angry about, he is angry about being left. Roy's father is also angry about being left, by God, and he has devoted his entire life to finding God. Roy also mentions that "I don't want to be that guy". He does not want to angrily hold on to a dream. Slowly he is changing throughout the film. None of this would be apparent to the viewers without the long monologues.
Why are you against depression? Have you considered that maybe depression is the rational reaction to the circumstance of futile birth and existence and lack of meaning and purpose. Do you frequently want to escape disturbing thoughts or ideas through self medicating or by not thinking? Why?
People get so upset when they don't understand a movie. They are unable to accept the fact that they didn't understand it in order to protect their ego. They will even go to the lengths of fabricating conspiracy theories. The subconscious mind cannot accept inferiority. It cannot even consider that maybe, just maybe it's true that I didn't get it.
You didn't get it, and that's okay. There are plenty of films out there for you to get, like Avatar for instance, that's a good example of film that is gettable by the mass populace.
What was the film that you wanted? Something like Avatar?
The sequel to Alien is called Aliens, for clarity I put 2 so that it is not confused with the original Alien. Is it surprising that I mentioned this film? Why?