That's how I feel when I reflect on my shift in politics, personal philosophy and spiritual life.
Sometimes I want back in.
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Friday, January 30, 2015
Disney creates first Latina princess.
Meet Princess Elena.
After the first biracial princess is featured, after all races are exhausted? The building pressure (I'd bet it'll come from lesbians and maybe a handful of bisexuals) for Disney to move to a new direction besides racial diversity: sexuality.
'Positive messages'
The series will feature "a universal story" with themes that "authentically reflect the hopes and dreams of our diverse audience", according to Nancy Kanter, the executive vice president of Disney Junior Worldwide.
"What excites us most is the chance to use distinctive animation and visual design to tell wonderful stories influenced by culture and traditions that are familiar to the worldwide population of Hispanic and Latino families and reflect the interests and aspirations of all children as told through a classic fairy tale," said Kanter.
While the show will centre around the "confident and compassionate teenager" Elena, it is being targeted at children aged two to seven.
Disney said the series, which will be presented in 25 languages around the world, will communicate "positive messages and life lessons" for young children about things like "leadership, resilience, diversity, compassion and the importance of family and family traditions".
Princess Elena's story starts when she is trapped inside an amulet while trying to protect her sister and grandparents from evil sorceress Shuriki, who took her parents and kingdom away.
It turns out to be the same amulet worn by Princess Sofia, who will set out to restore Elena to her human form and help her return to the kingdom of Avalor.The newest princess won't be getting an animated film, but instead will be given her own television series on the Disney Junior channel.
Princess Elena will make her debut in a 2016 episode of Sofia the First before getting her own spin-off series.I'm fine with this, but it does it beg question when will the first biracial princess be debuted. I remember hearing a lot of buzz when the first black princess, Princess Tiana, was announced and saying, along the lines of "It's about time!" It's inevitable. Do you hear that? That's the sound of liberal white women saying "How about the kids who grew up in households with two parents of the different races? What about them? They, too, exist. Their experiences matter."
After the first biracial princess is featured, after all races are exhausted? The building pressure (I'd bet it'll come from lesbians and maybe a handful of bisexuals) for Disney to move to a new direction besides racial diversity: sexuality.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Bridges of Madison County, The Horse Whisperer, Tales of a Humpack Whale ...
What do all of these have in common? Marital affairs. All conducted by women. What do these women have in common? They're wives who feel neglected.
I visited IMDb to learn more about The Lovers, a French movie - part of the New Wave era, after this popped up on my dashboard on tumblr. The comment below it reads (as quoted from the film's wiki page):
"Deserves 7 out of 10 because it is provocative and like all good art, subversive."
Granted the poster did say the movie was "insipid," so the narrative and characters within the film did not impress.
Is all "good" art indeed subversive? Subversive to what? Who had the credibility to say that all "good" art is subversive? Is it a "I know it when I see it" sort of thing? I remember reading a discussion between several people, one of them insisting, that art - as it always was - was about questioning the status quo ie traditional morals, societal norms. I question this.
Le Louvre houses many paintings from various time periods, reaching world wide in its collection, and many aren't considered "subversive," yet at the same time considered great works of art. Take for example, my favorite, Atala au tombeau (pictured below). I do not believe it was met with any serious backlash.
and a review entitled "Looking for real happiness" -
Let's take two people. One sees a traffic light, only seeing red and yellow, not green. He is colorblind. Is that reality the correct reality? How about the person who sees the same traffic light and sees red, yellow AND green? Is that person also correct in his reality? Does reality makes truth? Laws have established that red is stop, green is go, and yellow is "slow down." This is the language of traffic systems. If the light turns green and the person not seeing green does not move forward he'll get beeped, that is if someone is behind him. If no one is then he'll either sit there waiting for green or get frustrated and step on the gas pedal, no matter the color. He wants to go and he wants it now.
If one does not know language things can get difficult. Not knowing a language, when it is necessary, is a handicap.
"I know it when I see it."
A compelling line, "What's wrong when the current life is disrupted to start a new one?" unmasks the selfishness within. In The Lovers the bored housewife leaves her family for a young lover. She has a daughter. Was her neglecting husband abusive - verbal and/or physically? No. Though rich (due to her husband), she was not happy. Her daughter's life could not bring her enough happiness in order to stay. Within one night after the affair she chose the young man as her future.
A status quo of modernity - and modernity is the skin of today's entertainment world - is to not be judgmental, at least when it comes to sexuality (either keep silent, be indifferent or approve). Maybe, in this case, questioning the status quo should be done.
I visited IMDb to learn more about The Lovers, a French movie - part of the New Wave era, after this popped up on my dashboard on tumblr. The comment below it reads (as quoted from the film's wiki page):
The film is important in American legal history as it resulted in a court case that questioned the definition of obscenity. A showing of the film in Cleveland Heights, Ohio's Coventry Village resulted in a criminal conviction of the theatre manager for public depiction of obscene material. He appealed his conviction to the United States Supreme Court, which reversed the conviction and ruled that the film was not obscene in its written opinion (Jacobellis v. Ohio). The case resulted in Justice Potter Stewart's famously subjective definition of hard-core pornography: "I know it when I see it." (Stewart did not consider the film to be such.)When I first saw the post I thought to myself "Hmmm, let me see, an affair?" Sure enough it was. I then was curious to see what the viewers on IMDb said, and came up with this:
"Deserves 7 out of 10 because it is provocative and like all good art, subversive."
Granted the poster did say the movie was "insipid," so the narrative and characters within the film did not impress.
Is all "good" art indeed subversive? Subversive to what? Who had the credibility to say that all "good" art is subversive? Is it a "I know it when I see it" sort of thing? I remember reading a discussion between several people, one of them insisting, that art - as it always was - was about questioning the status quo ie traditional morals, societal norms. I question this.
Le Louvre houses many paintings from various time periods, reaching world wide in its collection, and many aren't considered "subversive," yet at the same time considered great works of art. Take for example, my favorite, Atala au tombeau (pictured below). I do not believe it was met with any serious backlash.
and a review entitled "Looking for real happiness" -
In 1959 this film was considered as something close to porno, but this is far enough from the reality. Jeanne Moreau was young, nice and attractive. She was the star of this film, which goes slowly as usual in French cinema's style. When you see this type of film you must become a psychologist to penetrate inside the brains of each hero and make some conclusions. Accordingly I concluded that life is not a straight line, suddenly something may happen in our lives that deviate completely this straight line. Formal ethics accepted by the society goes sometimes to extremes that does not enable the persons to behave and feel happy. What's wrong when the current life is disrupted to start a new one? At this point I advise you to see this old, and black and white film, which may compel you to think and to conclude something new, probably different to what I am saying here.Whose "reality" is true? The man who filed a complaint that resulted in Jacobellis v. Ohio or the person who said it was far from a porno? Both? Does soft porn fall under the category "porno," or is only hardcore?
Let's take two people. One sees a traffic light, only seeing red and yellow, not green. He is colorblind. Is that reality the correct reality? How about the person who sees the same traffic light and sees red, yellow AND green? Is that person also correct in his reality? Does reality makes truth? Laws have established that red is stop, green is go, and yellow is "slow down." This is the language of traffic systems. If the light turns green and the person not seeing green does not move forward he'll get beeped, that is if someone is behind him. If no one is then he'll either sit there waiting for green or get frustrated and step on the gas pedal, no matter the color. He wants to go and he wants it now.
If one does not know language things can get difficult. Not knowing a language, when it is necessary, is a handicap.
"I know it when I see it."
A compelling line, "What's wrong when the current life is disrupted to start a new one?" unmasks the selfishness within. In The Lovers the bored housewife leaves her family for a young lover. She has a daughter. Was her neglecting husband abusive - verbal and/or physically? No. Though rich (due to her husband), she was not happy. Her daughter's life could not bring her enough happiness in order to stay. Within one night after the affair she chose the young man as her future.
A status quo of modernity - and modernity is the skin of today's entertainment world - is to not be judgmental, at least when it comes to sexuality (either keep silent, be indifferent or approve). Maybe, in this case, questioning the status quo should be done.
"Good for you."
When people "come out of the closet" as a homosexual or bisexual, the reaction usually is "Good for you!"
Why?
These are situations where I would say "Good for you!" -
"I got a B on a test in a subject that I struggle in!"
"I past my driving test!"
"I paid off all my debt!"
"I got a job after X number of interviews for various institutions!"
"My first book was published!"
"We had a baby!"
"I got an athletic scholarship!"
"I moved into my own apartment after living my with parents for several after college graduation!"
"I have good credit!"
"I eat a healthy, moderate diet!"
"I acknowledged my sins and faults and promise to be better in the future!"
"I went pee pee by myself!"
If someone "came out" to me I wouldn't say "Good for you!" That wouldn't even be in my thoughts. I'd be "Okay. How are you dealing with your sexuality? How are you feeling about it?"
This post is in response to entertainer Joel Grey "coming out" as gay. He was married for about 24 years (now divorced) and within this marriage he had two children.
What's interesting is that people who responded to this are saying "Good for him!" How is this an accomplishment? What is there to celebrate? Is whatever pressure he is feeling somehow lifted? Does he feel any better telling the world? After his divorce did he indulge/engage in his sexuality? What I'm concerned about is this: Did he tell his ex-wife and kids?
What's also interesting is the "I don't like labels" part. I do. Labels tell when my food is expired. My name is a label. Even "it" is a label. Everything that has a name is a label. Names are labels. Labels tell us information. If people ask about my sexuality I'll respond, if I feel like sharing, "I'm straight," not "Well, I don't like labels, but I'm straight." Or it's like me saying "I don't like called being a man. I'm a human being." I'd be a fool to even think of it that way.
I think this "no labels" also feeds into the "don't put me in a box" mentality, this "special snowflake" phenomenon that society has grown accustomed to. BUT the "no labels" is mostly used towards taboos that want to be normal, to shake of that taboo. BUT, in a way, actually makes one "special" - if we look at it that way.
"Good for you!", in this situation, is a false reason for congratulations. Was he a good father? Was he a decent man towards his wife? How did he treat his fans and others who may not share his social status? If "good" for any or all those, then "Good for him." Did he choose not to enter a same-sex relationship? If so, then "Good for him."
Why?
These are situations where I would say "Good for you!" -
"I got a B on a test in a subject that I struggle in!"
"I past my driving test!"
"I paid off all my debt!"
"I got a job after X number of interviews for various institutions!"
"My first book was published!"
"We had a baby!"
"I got an athletic scholarship!"
"I moved into my own apartment after living my with parents for several after college graduation!"
"I have good credit!"
"I eat a healthy, moderate diet!"
"I acknowledged my sins and faults and promise to be better in the future!"
"I went pee pee by myself!"
If someone "came out" to me I wouldn't say "Good for you!" That wouldn't even be in my thoughts. I'd be "Okay. How are you dealing with your sexuality? How are you feeling about it?"
This post is in response to entertainer Joel Grey "coming out" as gay. He was married for about 24 years (now divorced) and within this marriage he had two children.
What's interesting is that people who responded to this are saying "Good for him!" How is this an accomplishment? What is there to celebrate? Is whatever pressure he is feeling somehow lifted? Does he feel any better telling the world? After his divorce did he indulge/engage in his sexuality? What I'm concerned about is this: Did he tell his ex-wife and kids?
What's also interesting is the "I don't like labels" part. I do. Labels tell when my food is expired. My name is a label. Even "it" is a label. Everything that has a name is a label. Names are labels. Labels tell us information. If people ask about my sexuality I'll respond, if I feel like sharing, "I'm straight," not "Well, I don't like labels, but I'm straight." Or it's like me saying "I don't like called being a man. I'm a human being." I'd be a fool to even think of it that way.
I think this "no labels" also feeds into the "don't put me in a box" mentality, this "special snowflake" phenomenon that society has grown accustomed to. BUT the "no labels" is mostly used towards taboos that want to be normal, to shake of that taboo. BUT, in a way, actually makes one "special" - if we look at it that way.
"Good for you!", in this situation, is a false reason for congratulations. Was he a good father? Was he a decent man towards his wife? How did he treat his fans and others who may not share his social status? If "good" for any or all those, then "Good for him." Did he choose not to enter a same-sex relationship? If so, then "Good for him."
Sunday, January 25, 2015
What is Up is Down; What is Down is Up.
The left salivates over those who join their ranks.
Vets who are anti-war.
Straights entering same-sex relationships (some leaving a family behind), be their 'true sexuality' a homosexual or bisexual.
Liberal priests.
Rogue nuns/sisters.
Parents/friends supporting same-sex once dear ones "come out of the closet."
America turning into a more secular society.
Young adults turning away from their orthodox or traditional religion.
Monogamy to polyamory.
Cheating turning into "not a big deal."
Square to wild/free child.
Small town kid disowning his past (friends, family, neighbors) for a worldly living.
Melodic, rich tone for "noise."
Women dressing in androgynous ways to subvert "female expectations." As fashion designer. Stella McCartney, said "to be nothing," or when masculine and feminine characteristics meet as an equal point, so her theory goes.
Children of parents who work 9-5 jobs seek out work that is "non-conformist"; the be "ones boss", not an inferior to "the man."
Societal norms are perceived as bigoted; taboos are accepted.
Evil is turned into "ambiguity"; right & wrong are blurred lines.
Love & sex can easily be separated if we just let go of our sexual hangups.
Sexual partners are always referred to as "lovers."
Military & community service (firefighters, nurses) personal aren't seen as role models, entertainers are.
Teachers don't teach, they preach (about social justice, "equality," global warming, diversity).
Parents don't discipline, they become "friends" of their children; they let kids raise themselves to avoid being "helicopter" parents.
They use these situations as "proof" of the inferiority of so-called archaic, oppressive, non-creative, and claustrophobic Bronze/Victorian Age, 1950s society where everyone except white Christian males were miserable.
Vets who are anti-war.
Straights entering same-sex relationships (some leaving a family behind), be their 'true sexuality' a homosexual or bisexual.
Liberal priests.
Rogue nuns/sisters.
Parents/friends supporting same-sex once dear ones "come out of the closet."
America turning into a more secular society.
Young adults turning away from their orthodox or traditional religion.
Monogamy to polyamory.
Cheating turning into "not a big deal."
Square to wild/free child.
Small town kid disowning his past (friends, family, neighbors) for a worldly living.
Melodic, rich tone for "noise."
Women dressing in androgynous ways to subvert "female expectations." As fashion designer. Stella McCartney, said "to be nothing," or when masculine and feminine characteristics meet as an equal point, so her theory goes.
Children of parents who work 9-5 jobs seek out work that is "non-conformist"; the be "ones boss", not an inferior to "the man."
Societal norms are perceived as bigoted; taboos are accepted.
Evil is turned into "ambiguity"; right & wrong are blurred lines.
Love & sex can easily be separated if we just let go of our sexual hangups.
Sexual partners are always referred to as "lovers."
Military & community service (firefighters, nurses) personal aren't seen as role models, entertainers are.
Teachers don't teach, they preach (about social justice, "equality," global warming, diversity).
Parents don't discipline, they become "friends" of their children; they let kids raise themselves to avoid being "helicopter" parents.
They use these situations as "proof" of the inferiority of so-called archaic, oppressive, non-creative, and claustrophobic Bronze/Victorian Age, 1950s society where everyone except white Christian males were miserable.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Fox News and Europe and Canada
It's not a healthy relationship, that's for sure.
Paris Mayor, Anne Hildago, is upset enough to threaten to sue American station Fox News over "no-go" zones relating to the satirical Hebdo newspaper massacre.
I never thought it was true, but it is. Fox News is banned in Canada under claims that is is a lie machine and broadcasts propaganda. It's rather bizarre: Not even 20 years old and Fox News is loathed by the left and by most modernists -- thanks to the mainstream media acting hostile towards a single network that may not suck the "progressive" d_ck.
Paris Mayor, Anne Hildago, is upset enough to threaten to sue American station Fox News over "no-go" zones relating to the satirical Hebdo newspaper massacre.
I never thought it was true, but it is. Fox News is banned in Canada under claims that is is a lie machine and broadcasts propaganda. It's rather bizarre: Not even 20 years old and Fox News is loathed by the left and by most modernists -- thanks to the mainstream media acting hostile towards a single network that may not suck the "progressive" d_ck.
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Cyber bullying.
The new type of bullying. People who complain about cyber "bullying" are wussies. Wimps. Pansies.
It is the card pulled when dissent becomes too much in order to either silence opposing views or to form a "nuetral" ground.
Of course, this is not directed at the incidents where there is actual bullying - I include comment swarming as a legit action that would be deemed as cyber bullying e.g. spamming Facebook inbox/walls, linking a site in order to fill the comment box with so much traffic that it basically "overflows." But dissent? Nah. That's not bullying. At all.
Fry gets "married."
I couldn't help but get a tinge sick -- almost throw-up-ish -- when I read this. His partner is 27 years old. I wonder who sought who out. Did the young chap seek out Fry due to his celebrity status? Did Fry seek out the young chap due to being fresh meat? How did they meet? What are six degrees, if any exists? Maybe they genuinely like each other, in a "Best Friends Forever" buddy way. Whatever it is, I don't think its romantic/"I wanna have a family with you" love. That type of feeling. It ain't love love. I'm always skeptical about these types of relationships.
"Leave as one." I guess a baby will be born out of this "oneness."
I never thought Fry was nearly as funny and smart as England made him out to me, though I did like his road trip miniseries called Stephen Fry In America.
"Leave as one." I guess a baby will be born out of this "oneness."
I never thought Fry was nearly as funny and smart as England made him out to me, though I did like his road trip miniseries called Stephen Fry In America.
Movies: In American vs. Europe
If those who have issues about American films being "more in your face" when it comes to politics & violence, fair enough, then I'd like to complain about European films and the like, including smaller American films compared to tent poles: Stop shoving unnecessary/gratuitous nudity, sexual angst, LGBT glorification/"naturalism", and wimpiness in my face.
Your "greyness" aka love for (moral) ambiguity is neither stimulating or anything new. It's tiring. Go to Sundance Film Festival and there's bound to be at least a dozen films about the aforementioned topics. Same thing with TIFF, Cannes and Venice.
Your "greyness" aka love for (moral) ambiguity is neither stimulating or anything new. It's tiring. Go to Sundance Film Festival and there's bound to be at least a dozen films about the aforementioned topics. Same thing with TIFF, Cannes and Venice.
Thursday, January 15, 2015
The 87th Acadmeny Awards Nominees: Some Comments.
Here are the nominees for 87th Academy Awards (Oscars) Ceremony, which will be held on February 22, 2015 in the Dolby Theater at the Hollywood & Highland Center.
If I were in charge of the nominations I'd substitute the following:
I was thoroughly impressed with Matthew McConaughey's performance as Cooper in Interstellar, but I'm not sure if I'd put him in my top five. Either way, it's a shame he received no notices as Cooper; not even one. If I had to choose, I'd probably substitute him for Benedict Cumberbatch in The Imitation Game.
Emma Stone is right outside my top five, so choosing to replace her sort of bums me, so I really don't mind the nomination.
*Come to think of it, my picks for Best Actor might tempt some to call me xenophobic since I eliminated both of the nominees that are English.
Xenophobic, sexist, racist, prudish! Ah! Whatever shall society do?
If I were in charge of the nominations I'd substitute the following:
Best Picture - Gone Girl for The Theory of Everything, Interstellar for Selma
Best Director - David Fincher (Gone Girl) for Wes Anderson (The Grand Budapest Hotel)
Best Actor - Jake Gyllenhaal (Nightcrawler) for Eddie Redmayn (The Theory of Everything)
Best Actress - Essie Davis (The Babadook) for Felicity Jones (The Theory of Everything)
Best Supporting Actress - Carrie Coon (Gone Girl) for Emma Stone (Birdman), Kim Dickens (Gone Girl) for Patricia Arquette (Boyhood)
Best Original Screenplay - Interstellar for Boyhood
Best Adapted Screenplay - Gone Girl (by Gillian Flynn) for The Theory of Everything (by Anthony McCarten)
I was thoroughly impressed with Matthew McConaughey's performance as Cooper in Interstellar, but I'm not sure if I'd put him in my top five. Either way, it's a shame he received no notices as Cooper; not even one. If I had to choose, I'd probably substitute him for Benedict Cumberbatch in The Imitation Game.
Emma Stone is right outside my top five, so choosing to replace her sort of bums me, so I really don't mind the nomination.
*Come to think of it, my picks for Best Actor might tempt some to call me xenophobic since I eliminated both of the nominees that are English.
Xenophobic, sexist, racist, prudish! Ah! Whatever shall society do?
Poor actors. The public are vicous and sexist. What's next?!
I've complained about actors and their fanbases. If anyone is familiar with fanbases of actors, especially of actresses, the mentality of irrationality and victimization is mirrored throughout each respective group.
When almost criticism is shared the criticism is labeled as "vicious." The actors are always nice, compassionate, intelligent, ambitious, creative and a whole slew of other fine characteristics. The sexist card is played out when they complain about "not enough 'good' parts for women" amongst other circumstances.
Case in point, a Jennifer Aniston fan.
When almost criticism is shared the criticism is labeled as "vicious." The actors are always nice, compassionate, intelligent, ambitious, creative and a whole slew of other fine characteristics. The sexist card is played out when they complain about "not enough 'good' parts for women" amongst other circumstances.
Case in point, a Jennifer Aniston fan.
Not enough black people! Not enough women!
An injustice has occurred. As the nominees for the 87th Oscars were revealed this morning, besides people getting upset over supposed "snubs" and issuing complaints over who were nominated, other complaints had nothing to do with quality or skill, but of race and "gender" (in quotes because I use the term sex, not gender).
There's too white and there's not enough women, apparently. The horror. The injustice.
The cards of racism and sexism will be pulled out and played.
Wait, isn't Hollywood aka the movie industry one of the more open minded and tolerable places to work in in America, let alone the world, yet it somehow manages - in many SJW's eyes - to be "racist" and "sexist"? I guess they're going for perfection.
Since Birdman did not make it for Best Editing, and instead American Sniper did, a poster had a theory why -
Old white people. Now this isn't necessarily a blank accusation -
Poster zombiedance is known to pull cards like these. He's basically the walking stereotype of non-white "pretty damn liberal" guy. In other words narrow-mined, naive and insanely retarded in the most functional way, if that makes any sense at all.
The issues I have with the study is that it takes account for the overall makeup of those within AMPAS acting voting branch, but no word of the makeup of those that actually cast their votes.
There's too white and there's not enough women, apparently. The horror. The injustice.
The cards of racism and sexism will be pulled out and played.
Wait, isn't Hollywood aka the movie industry one of the more open minded and tolerable places to work in in America, let alone the world, yet it somehow manages - in many SJW's eyes - to be "racist" and "sexist"? I guess they're going for perfection.
Since Birdman did not make it for Best Editing, and instead American Sniper did, a poster had a theory why -
Poster zombiedance is known to pull cards like these. He's basically the walking stereotype of non-white "pretty damn liberal" guy. In other words narrow-mined, naive and insanely retarded in the most functional way, if that makes any sense at all.
The issues I have with the study is that it takes account for the overall makeup of those within AMPAS acting voting branch, but no word of the makeup of those that actually cast their votes.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
American Sniper: Where Patriotism & Duty Sickens the Modernists
Apparently films about war, like American Sniper, are jingoistic, the rhetoric that comes from non-progressives is "right-wing political mumbo jumbo", black and white (which speaks of modernism -- its fetish with greyness and ambiguity) and as one poster said "Very pro-war, black and white, GO MURICA BS in that movie"
That's IMDb for you, at least in the Movie Awards board section.
EDIT: More thoughts on the film by IMDb posters. Here as well. This thread has more reasonable responses, but still has a couple of responses that are laughable.
Some are saying the real life Chris Kyle was a douchebag - I have never met Chris Kyle nor have I read his book, American Sniper (same name as the movie) - but these are people who tend not to be pro-military and lean on the non-conservative side of politics. He may have been a d-bag in real life, I don't know, but I find this accusation peculiar since I gather they, too, have never met or read his book either, yet these are the same people that stand up for actors pulling the "We don't know them! There humans just like us!" card. See this post.
As I've observed before: Actors/entertainers are the protected class of public personalities. People like Chris Kyle and (conservative) politicians, corporate CEOs and (some) professional athletes? D-bags. Losers. Greedy.
Oh, and if there's any doubt that those who tend to be "movie buffs", ya know - like film so much that they think it's some grand intellectual journey and some medium that peers into the human condition like no other medium, have drunken the Modern Kool-Aid here's evidence that washes that doubt away -
That's IMDb for you, at least in the Movie Awards board section.
EDIT: More thoughts on the film by IMDb posters. Here as well. This thread has more reasonable responses, but still has a couple of responses that are laughable.
Some are saying the real life Chris Kyle was a douchebag - I have never met Chris Kyle nor have I read his book, American Sniper (same name as the movie) - but these are people who tend not to be pro-military and lean on the non-conservative side of politics. He may have been a d-bag in real life, I don't know, but I find this accusation peculiar since I gather they, too, have never met or read his book either, yet these are the same people that stand up for actors pulling the "We don't know them! There humans just like us!" card. See this post.
As I've observed before: Actors/entertainers are the protected class of public personalities. People like Chris Kyle and (conservative) politicians, corporate CEOs and (some) professional athletes? D-bags. Losers. Greedy.
Oh, and if there's any doubt that those who tend to be "movie buffs", ya know - like film so much that they think it's some grand intellectual journey and some medium that peers into the human condition like no other medium, have drunken the Modern Kool-Aid here's evidence that washes that doubt away -
More: The Guardian article, written by Linda West, (through alternet.com) and, as she notes, the "exhaustive" efforts of Rania Khalek's documentation of supposed "swift and violent" opposition of right-wing on twittersphere.
Swift and violent? I'm trying not to laugh. It's true, ISIS would not take in women with the amount of respect that, I hope, most American would - as with most men in civilized societies. Sure, the twitter backlash towards that one female twitter poster could've been more polite, more sanitized (ironically), but it's hardly anything "violent." The violence was to show the reality that is ISIS. It's like saying "Go swim in the Pacific and get eaten by sharks." A threat? Sure, but hardly anything remotely "OMGush I could you say such a thing?!" Did I say that I observed the left is mightily sensitive and takes any threat as deeply offensive? If I didn't, now you know.
What's more disrespectful than a "Go to ISIS you cunt!"? Saying that Chris Kyle's death was "poetic justice."
The comment sections of both the alternet articles adds to the amusement. I mean, after I watched a couple of segments (here and here) on US military snipers -- I'm pretty sure that those who deem snipers as "serial killers" are a bunch of wussies in real life, too self-involved to even volunteer on a regular basis at a homeless shelter or punch the shit out of the bully that's terrorizing that little kid at recess.
Thanking God and The LGBT Cult
Gina Rodriguez apparently thanked God during her speech while accepting the award for Best Actress in a TV Series (Musical or Comedy). That didn't sit well with this IMDb poster -
Interesting encounters I have had with homosexuals. Here are the things they deny:
They deny the victim mentality. To them those that accuse people of the victim mentality are blind to the reality of their lives. When pressured on what makes them a victim (and further inquiry of what constitutes a person to be labeled a victim) they resort to "Isn't it obvious?" Apparently not, so I need some help.
They deny that there is a thing as being politically correct. This happened twice. Once when it came to bullying and the other just in general speak. The them the accusation of being PC is just nonsense - laughable. 'We aren't being PC, we're just controlling the language being used in order for to frame the narrative to our likings. And to censor certain words that hurt our feelings." Totally not PC. Totally.
Interesting encounters I have had with homosexuals. Here are the things they deny:
They deny the victim mentality. To them those that accuse people of the victim mentality are blind to the reality of their lives. When pressured on what makes them a victim (and further inquiry of what constitutes a person to be labeled a victim) they resort to "Isn't it obvious?" Apparently not, so I need some help.
They deny that there is a thing as being politically correct. This happened twice. Once when it came to bullying and the other just in general speak. The them the accusation of being PC is just nonsense - laughable. 'We aren't being PC, we're just controlling the language being used in order for to frame the narrative to our likings. And to censor certain words that hurt our feelings." Totally not PC. Totally.
Monday, January 12, 2015
Cooties
This is the response relating to the 72nd Golden Globe Awards held on January 11th, 2015. Here is the the complete list of nominees for the category Bomer and Voight were competing in -
No mention of Colin Hanks (son of Tom Hanks) or Alan Cumming (also a homosexual, but not young and handsome as Bomer). The contempt for the right-wing in entertainment isn't necessarily new, just when it's shown it's almost pure vitriol and bitterness.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
The Narrow Definition
Exchange "culture" with marriage and that's what same-sex marriage people say.You must know, that your definition of "culture" is rather narrow and not reflective of the general U.S. population.
Your Inner Bi
There's a popular card being pulled: Religion and social norms drive society to exist, hence the emphasis on procreation and heterosexual propaganda, but in reality most of us (humans) are bisexual.
So basically if I'm included in this "most" I'm basically a bisexual. Well I can't wait to go to jail or meet the person of the same-sex that makes my heart flutter, my hands sweaty and my heart achey. Can. Not. Wait.
So basically if I'm included in this "most" I'm basically a bisexual. Well I can't wait to go to jail or meet the person of the same-sex that makes my heart flutter, my hands sweaty and my heart achey. Can. Not. Wait.
Sunday, January 4, 2015
Welcome to Youtube. You Will Find Plenty of Interesting Discussions.
WARNING: Much snark ahead. You may get the urge to punch me. Fair enough.
I heard there were at least 12 genders by some person, but gosh darn now for some prejudice and bigoted reasons it's only two. Luckily for all the sexual confused and "don't-put-me-in-a-box" types people are now learning that are more, like pansexuals and asexuals and ... I dunno.
Behold. Our gender experts for Tomorrowland. May your inner lesbian and gayness prevail!
Just by reading this I think I deserve Ph. D. in Gender Theory. Wait, are there any existing accredited programs specializing in Gender Theory? The committe that accredits is The "Love is Love"/"No Labels"/"No Hate" once located in San Francisco, CA, but has now found a new home in NYC which offers certificate programs in the cities of L.A. and Austin. Retreats are held in Arizona.
I heard there were at least 12 genders by some person, but gosh darn now for some prejudice and bigoted reasons it's only two. Luckily for all the sexual confused and "don't-put-me-in-a-box" types people are now learning that are more, like pansexuals and asexuals and ... I dunno.
Behold. Our gender experts for Tomorrowland. May your inner lesbian and gayness prevail!
Just by reading this I think I deserve Ph. D. in Gender Theory. Wait, are there any existing accredited programs specializing in Gender Theory? The committe that accredits is The "Love is Love"/"No Labels"/"No Hate" once located in San Francisco, CA, but has now found a new home in NYC which offers certificate programs in the cities of L.A. and Austin. Retreats are held in Arizona.
Arguing with fanboys.
There's so much stupidity on IMDb. I should stop visiting that site, but it's like a car crash in that I have to look for some bizarre reason.
Discussion about an actress whose phone was hacked which revealed nudes.
Fanboy 1: Normal women take nude pictures of themselves.
Poster 1: Well, I consider myself a normal woman and I don't take nude pictures of myself.
Fanboy 2: How do we know you're normal? How do we know who you say you are? What's your name and social security # so we can look you up and see if you're 'normal'?
Poster 1: What on earth ... Because I said so? I don't have any fetishes nor do I have kids hidden in my basement. I never said people who do take pictures of themselves are not normal.
Fanboy 3: Hey Poster, it's hard to define 'normal.' Many women today take nudes of themselves.
Poster 1: Yea, I know women take such pictures of themselves. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that this person, me, doesn't. And why do I have to prove my 'normalcy'?
Poster 2: Don't argue with fanboys since they tend to perverts, Poster 1.
Fanboy 2: Poster 2, you're douchebag.
Discussion about an actress whose phone was hacked which revealed nudes.
Fanboy 1: Normal women take nude pictures of themselves.
Poster 1: Well, I consider myself a normal woman and I don't take nude pictures of myself.
Fanboy 2: How do we know you're normal? How do we know who you say you are? What's your name and social security # so we can look you up and see if you're 'normal'?
Poster 1: What on earth ... Because I said so? I don't have any fetishes nor do I have kids hidden in my basement. I never said people who do take pictures of themselves are not normal.
Fanboy 3: Hey Poster, it's hard to define 'normal.' Many women today take nudes of themselves.
Poster 1: Yea, I know women take such pictures of themselves. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that this person, me, doesn't. And why do I have to prove my 'normalcy'?
Poster 2: Don't argue with fanboys since they tend to perverts, Poster 1.
Fanboy 2: Poster 2, you're douchebag.
Saturday, January 3, 2015
CAF
Temporarily banned for three days. Infraction was 100 points for insulting another poster. Since I received a previous citation for the same thing (which cost a measly five points) I was said I "did not learn from the last time." Heck, I didn't even remember the previous one - checking my inbox my memory was refreshed: The citation was dated May 2014! I barely visited the site last year so that would explain my forgetfulness.
What did I say? I questioned the legitimacy of a question being asked and said I wasn't going to answer it because I thought it was ridiculous.
Okay, maybe I shouldn't have reacted the way I did. I should have been more "charitable."
This also happened to another poster who was quite opinionated, but was banned for several days - not sure what infraction she broke - and after that ban her posts slowly dried up where she didn't post for months. She was one of the better posters on CAF when it came to dealing with secular and post-modern thinking. The other posters, well, most? Horrid at dealing with them. A bunch of doormats if the SS Army invaded their house they'd just pray in a corner and not fight back. A pathetic bunch to say the least.
I'll be back within three days.
And I'll still "insult" - but I'll do it more insidiously. I know, I know, I don't learn from my mistakes. What can I say, I'm human. Human makes mistakes, so "just deal with it." (Well, I do have to be "nice" because I'll forever be banned, so f_ck you moderators Michael Francis and Robert Bay, I wouldn't want you guys in the same foxhole as me. You'd offer the enemy tea and crumpets, be either shot or captured and wonder what went wrong.)
What did I say? I questioned the legitimacy of a question being asked and said I wasn't going to answer it because I thought it was ridiculous.
Okay, maybe I shouldn't have reacted the way I did. I should have been more "charitable."
This also happened to another poster who was quite opinionated, but was banned for several days - not sure what infraction she broke - and after that ban her posts slowly dried up where she didn't post for months. She was one of the better posters on CAF when it came to dealing with secular and post-modern thinking. The other posters, well, most? Horrid at dealing with them. A bunch of doormats if the SS Army invaded their house they'd just pray in a corner and not fight back. A pathetic bunch to say the least.
I'll be back within three days.
And I'll still "insult" - but I'll do it more insidiously. I know, I know, I don't learn from my mistakes. What can I say, I'm human. Human makes mistakes, so "just deal with it." (Well, I do have to be "nice" because I'll forever be banned, so f_ck you moderators Michael Francis and Robert Bay, I wouldn't want you guys in the same foxhole as me. You'd offer the enemy tea and crumpets, be either shot or captured and wonder what went wrong.)
Sexual Morality is Non-Existent to Modernists/Libertines
Modernists don't think things through, do they? Saying a "woman can do whatever she wants and sleep with whoever" and casting it as "A-OKAY" is a saying "No big deal." That's an indirect way of approving it, which is a judgment call.
I can think of a few big way it affects me: Sex is seen as trivial yet not at the same time which then creates confusion between the two parties (or more) that engage in casual sex. This is basically having ones cake and eating it too. If the "no big deal" attitude is seen as fine then sleeping around isn't looked at anything morally degrading or perverted. Sleeping is then seen as "normal" and anyone who raises an eyebrow is seen as judgmental, sexist or a prude - or all three.
There's a dissonance and I'm not sure why there is one.
It is not necessarily that a woman has slept with ten guys that it concerns me the most - for all I know she could be desperate for money needed to pay off a debt or pay for her child's schooling, or maybe she's just a slut (the only "good" slut in my mind is the one that finds herself in dire situations as noted above) - but the attitude that follows directly after it, "it doesn't affect me" attitude, just makes the whole scenario a pool of feces. The "it doesn't affect you" is probably held by the slut who does sleep with ten men; oddly enough when the "slept with ten men" story is brought up it will most likely be cast aside like a story that no one wants to hear with a "Who cares?" or maybe a "It's non of your business."
But if someone bullied or teased a classmate? It's a big deal. If someone doesn't vote for gay "marriage"? It's a big deal.
What also gets me confused the "every man is an island" when it comes to sex but all of a sudden I have to care about the whales and the trees. It's like personal responsibility and restraint in the modernist/libertine's mind is not really a solid foundation for a sound society, but supporting "green" products, so called "civil rights" and practicing tolerance (the extreme kind of "it doesn't affect you" types) is. Amorality naturally sides with debauchery.
Does this make a moralist? Maybe so. Does this make judgmental? Yes.
Thursday, January 1, 2015
Put the blame somewhere else.
And not ones choices.
Here are a couple of things that I've noticed. These notices most likely are extraordinary small, but still, I found them interesting nonetheless.
When blacks talk about how they are oppressed (blacks in jail, poor inner city schools) racism is to blame.
When entertainers are put in a negative light due to personal choices, the media culture is to blame.
After how long slavery has ended and the Civil Rights Era concluded more than half a century later, blacks still say that racism is the main culprit of their plight. A movie critic blame's the media for his inability to fully take in the movie for what it is.
Here are a couple of things that I've noticed. These notices most likely are extraordinary small, but still, I found them interesting nonetheless.
When blacks talk about how they are oppressed (blacks in jail, poor inner city schools) racism is to blame.
When entertainers are put in a negative light due to personal choices, the media culture is to blame.
After how long slavery has ended and the Civil Rights Era concluded more than half a century later, blacks still say that racism is the main culprit of their plight. A movie critic blame's the media for his inability to fully take in the movie for what it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)