MovieChat Forums > MavKilledGoose > Replies
MavKilledGoose's Replies
If Arabs were supposed to be so particularly and inalterably hostile to Jews, then why would Zionists select the Middle East for safe harbor? In the late 19th century, Europe was the main threat. Do you imagine a Holocaust could happen in Germany today? A hundred years from now? Three hundred years ago it would be almost impossible to imagine that Germany and France would be allies. It was initially difficult to get Muslims to engage in suicide bombing, but ideas usually adapt to material conditions (rather than vice-versa). Palestinians had been relatively secular until recent decades. Social safety nets tend to undermine religion. Religious belief is more likely to thrive in poverty. Compare Gaza to the West Bank. However, poverty and religion are relatively common while terrorism is relatively rare. Other important factors are age (need of young men) and inequality. People who are not the poorest of the poor, but believe they would have been much better off -- the ones who feel they have lost the most -- tend to be radicalized.
As for a Swedish bakery... there are anti-police protests in London where people hold up signs that say "do not shoot" in front of police officers who are unarmed. Identity politics isn't just a big export for the Middle East.
1. If it's still unclear to you, I'm not sure what else I can say that will help.
2. Just because someone is a stupid, vulgar incel does not mean they're wrong when it comes to X political view. That is indeed a fallacy of irrelevance. A given person's religious beliefs are also irrelevant to, say, the effectiveness of Republican tax cuts. But if we're talking about the broad background characteristics of a forum, then their religious views are precisely the subject. That you ascribe this bipartisan fallacy to "lefties" beclowns you.
3. I could be mistaken. This and my previous interaction with you suggest otherwise. People do not as often cite "Dunning-Krueger!" as that has been a victim in the replication crisis. Notice that my posts contain arguments and yours contain mostly assertions. The argument you have here is a poor one. It would be silly to say to a person before you, "People are generally average height, so I'm going to guess that you are average height," especially in a comment about observation skills.
4. Don't care. Inceldom was related to loneliness. Vulgarity went against the idea that this forum is especially religious. The comment about stupidity was gratuitous, especially as it's likely true. If you say I'm punching down on this forum, I wholeheartedly agree. This not so subtly contradicts your assertion in 3 (if I were as stupid as you say, I would not be punching "down").
An argument about "deserving" a Jewish homeland is sometimes couched in terms of affirmative action: There are many Arab countries, so Jews deserve a country of their own. Personally, I find that more compelling than hokey ancestral land claims and "Chosen People." The problem is that colonial powers did not have the moral authority to give away other people's land. Or as Gandhi said (paraphrasing), "European Jews do not have the right to enter Arab lands under the shadow of the British gun." The main argument for a homeland has long been a refuge as Jews will always be under attack. Seth Rogen has remarked, "I've always said, 'Don't put all your Jews in one basket.'" An enduring problem in international affairs stems from the British carving up the remnants of the empire in arbitrary ways.
Gandhi claimed a Jewish homeland was not about a specific tract of land, but resided in the hearts and minds of Jews. Early Zionists had thought about part of Brazil for a new Israel. AI doomer Eliezer Yudkowsky has said this conflict could have been avoided if Jews were given 1% of Canada with access to the sea. There are going to be issues with moving millions of people -- it's never problem-free -- but Canada would have been a safe distance from murderous Europe.
And Arizonans are "just" Americans.
It's a poor argument. First of all, regardless of what demonym one chooses, non-Jewish people have been living in what's now called Israel for a long time. There are people who were born in a home on land that has been in their family for centuries. They cannot return to their home because they're non-Jewish. Meanwhile, there are "chosen" people born in Los Angeles who have never stepped foot outside of California, and they have a "right to return" to Israel. They have the right to "return" to a place they've never been.
European Jews reclaiming "their" land is incandescently stupid. There were non-Jewish tribes who lived on the land before Jews, and non-Jewish tribes after Jews. How can a person non-arbitrarily award the land to Jews? To further complicate matters, non-Jewish residents (aka Palestinians) had ancestors in the area who were Christian and Jewish. The territory has been a crossroads for empires, and people predictably married out and changed their religion, but still lived on the land of their ancestors.
1. This has already been explained.
2. What do you think my deal is? I made observations about this forum.
3. Yes, another observation.
4. Sure, but again, it's just an observation.
In some ways, the problems in the Middle-East are a vindication of paleo-conservative beliefs. Zionism is basically social engineering via immigration. The indigenous people in the area resented outsiders flooding in. Israeli politics is a forerunner to the current cultural zeitgeist. You have making everything about race (Criticism of Israel has long been framed as anti-Semitic). People criticizing Israel have long been canceled (Helen Thomas, Norman Finkelstein, and the idea that "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences).
It's also tribal rather than principled. Republicans have increasingly opposed funding Ukraine because we need to care about "our people," but some have been quick to say we need a Speaker to fund Israel. What about funding the US government? Hasn't the US lavished aid on Israel for decades -- and where has it gotten us? The massacre carried out by Hamas was evil and unconscionable, but a group with hang-gliders does not pose an existential threat to Israel the way Russia poses an existential threat to Ukraine.
Republicans non-ironically defend a country borne out of unwanted immigration, supported by global elites, and designed to create a socialist state. Libertarian-inspired conservatives parrot talking points about a government's "right to exist." These are people who claim violence can and should be used to defend sacred property rights, except, I guess, if one's a Palestinian (as Palestinians do not exist, but Texans do). They oppose "welfare" policies but support "settlements," which are little more than government-subsidized segregated housing. But, again, this is where principles go to die and tribal allegiance hold strong.
Wokism (and politics in general) can be viewed as religion-adjacent, but these are not really religious views. As religion declines, politics has become more of a lifestyle (and lifestyles have become more political).
"There is definitely a huge amount of overlap between the TDS sufferers and inceldom. It really shines whenever women republicans come into the news... especially MTG and Lauren Boebert. The TDScels really hate those two."
That might very well be the case. I think they're taken too seriously. I have encountered self-described liberals who believe Boebert and Greene secretly celebrate mass shootings of LGBT people, and it is their goal to encourage more violence. In my view, these politicians are performative morons who pretty much make things up as they go along. Boebert failed her GED several times so she's not sinking bank shots with coded signals.
Trump supporters being evangelicals who do not attend church services is, as far as I know, a fact. I do not have evidence for this forum beyond impressions and, as I said, I have not observed piety. The politics forum does seem to have a lot of incel-rage, non-stop stupidity (thanks for your contributions), and vulgarity. I think that's the case regardless of whether I like or dislike it.
I don't dispute that women are the gatekeepers of sex, but women are not primarily interested in sex. They often seek commitment. Some cognitive empathy is in order -- for both sexes. A woman in the bottom 90 percent has many more sexual opportunities than men in the bottom 90th percentile, but a woman in the top 1% is outranked by men in the top 1% (or even the top 5%). In other words, there's a flatter bell curve for males than females, which creates more of a feast or famine environment.
Self-described "femcels" report not finding acceptance in incel communities on the view that these women could easily have sex. Incels claim "femcel" is a misnomer. But I don't think it's all that much different for men, at least in modern-day America. There are lots of lonely, unattractive women in the world that men could have sex with but calculate that the payoff is not worth the effort (where effort is extroversion and rejection).
Religion does not normally flourish online, and though I've never spent a lot of time in this cesspool, I can't say it struck me as terribly religious. What's more, Trump is likely an atheist. He addresses Christians like other interest groups. He'll go to Iowa and say "Isn't corn great? It's amazing. You know what? Our farmers are the best farmers in the world. I love it here." He'll go to Christians, "Isn't Jesus great? Walking on the water. Incredible. You know what? I think our Christians are the best Christians. The best."
His biggest supporters are evangelicals who do not attend church services. Not surprisingly, more than a few people have observed that his rallies are like religious revivals. This forum is like a support-group for the similarly disaffiliated -- except fueled by incel-rage, non-stop stupidity and vulgarity.
She includes caveats about her "judgment," including, "But it all depends...Maybe he’s been in… decade [-long] relationships, totally respectable." If a dude has never been married, or in a serious long-term relationship and has fewer than four partners, well, that IS unusual (and "weird" is just a more unpleasant word for "unusual"). However, it's becoming more typical as the United States begins to resemble Japan -- with a hefty dose of pseudo-polygamy/hookup culture. It might not be all that unusual for today's cohort of teenagers to have fewer than four partners by 40 (especially men).
As for her "clueless[ness]." With evaporating cultural norms, men can have sex with as many women as they want. She knows men like to have sex, so why does a dude only have four partners? Either he can't have more, which is suggestive of traits she will not find attractive, or he doesn't want to, which IS weird. Oscar Wilde said something to the effect, "Chastity is the greatest form of perversion."
"[W]hy not look at bottom?"
Why do oncoming objects appear to be moving faster than they are? Why are people more sensitive to bad news than good news? Why are so many men at the bottom of the social hierarchy invisible to women? Because of natural selection.
Having a distorted view of the world can help promote survival and replication. For men, irrational self-confidence can be invaluable when it comes to securing one's genetic legacy.
One of those five is David Fincher. The studio desperately wanted to do a remake of <i>Se7en</i>. They repurposed a serial killer script to be called <i>Ei8ht</i>. That script's co-writer, Ted Griffen, said they offered Morgan Freeman a truckload of money, but Fincher apparently urged him not to do it. The script was made into a film titled <i>Solace</i> (starring Anthony Hopkins and Jeffrey Dean Morgan). Presumably, in <i>Ei8ht</i> Freeman's character would have developed supernatural abilities, which would have been completely idiotic.
The Dingam character was unnecessary. Not featured in the original, he was presumably created to kill off Colin and wrap a bow on the story. I still don't know why people loved him (Wahlberg got a supporting actor nomination. I thought Baldwin was better). If Dingam never existed, it would have given them more room to develop that world. Colin was ambitious, so a sequel, particularly a legacy sequel, would not have to be set in the police department.
I think I agree. If the movie had ended as written above people would have been "relieved" they weren't rolling around during the case. Romance is merely implied at the end rather than glistening sweat. It would have likely been considered tasteful.
From the NY Daily News: "Movie exec to Sorkin: If there’s no sex, why cast Demi Moore in ‘A Few Good Men’ instead of a man?"
[i]They’re not all good men.
When Aaron Sorkin refused to write a sex scene between Demi Moore and Tom Cruise in “A Few Good Men,” a frustrated studio exec asked why they didn’t just give Moore’s role to a man.
“There was an executive at the studio who badly wanted the characters played by Demi Moore and Tom Cruise to sleep together and I didn’t,” Sorkin told students at a Los Angeles Film School discussion.
“The whole idea of the movie was that these . . . young lawyers were in way over their head and two Marines were on trial for their lives, so if Tom Cruise and Demi Moore take time out to roll in the hay I just didn’t think we would like them as much for doing that,” Sorkin said he wrote to that exec while working on the 1992 adaptation of his play. “I’ll never forget what the executive wrote back, which was, ‘Well if Tom and Demi aren’t going to sleep together why is Demi a woman?’ and that completely stumped me.”
While that was the first time Sorkin refused to write a love scene, it wasn’t the last. Sorkin told USA Today that director Harold Becker asked him to pen something steamy between Alec Baldwin and Nicole Kidman in the 1993 film “Malice.” He declined, so the director threw together what Sorkin described as “a terrible scene” and filmed it.[/i]
This is true within the story's logic. If, however, the hits were to occur in something more like the real world, maybe they wouldn't go so loud as to blow up a house. If they did blow up the house, then the local news would not so quickly broadcast the names of the victims. If, in this alternative world, names would be broadcast that quickly, they should have used other methods given operational constraints.
It's a wonder anyone takes this guy seriously. To support Home Depot for refusing to succumb to the "Woke Left," he went in and bought a plank of wood. He triumphantly showed it off, holding it half-wrapped in a plastic bag.
Interesting cope. If this were true, then why wasn't there a huge drop-off after the opening weekend?
She's always touted as a substantive actor, but the transcript here suggests a brain made of cotton candy.