"Chinese craftsman are always intelligent and diligent"
Made me think of Kung Pow: Enter the Fist
"Some people say that I do things that are not....correct to do. I do not believe such things. I am nice man with happy feelings ALL of the time!"
Banning troons from public society is the only rational thing.
If someone in the 1950s wanted to cross dress such as Ed Wood, their choices were in private at their home, privately under their men’s clothes, or in private parties.
Going out in public meant being scorned and mocked at least, and more likely getting beaten up.
You have a civilization that makes crossdressing equally unpalatable and you’re going to see this basically go away, as long as you bring back insane asylums as well
Boomer blaming is stupid. Most people when they think of "boomers who sold us out" are thinking of someone like my parents age. Mid-60s. You know what my parents were doing during all that hippie Marxist revolution crap on college?
They were playing with toys because they were 5 years old.
The hippie boomer college kids in the 60s were born in the 40s and are now like 80 years old. And even then, who's to blame for selling the idea to naive college kids? They weren't the ones who held political office and made decisions...Then you gotta go and look at the Silent generation.....at that point, if you're having to go look for some generation born in 1910 or something, you've become like the black community looking for some past boogeyman to blame all your ills on, and it also doesn't allow for the fact that hindsight is 20/20.
In all time periods, nations trade with other nations. Tyre was a port city that was rich because it traded with other nations, as one example.
I think a lot of what was done in the past was done not realizing the full implications of what would happen because there was no way to know about certain things such as the internet. Before the internet, the globalization of culture wasn't a known threat. In the 80s we still had a national American culture despite the globalist trading that we were in, because money and goods may exchange hands, but American culture was insolated still.
When the internet came about, this globalization and mixed up way we were with all the nations became 100 times worse (that said the cultural problems the internet brought still would have been there to a degree even if we never had globalist economy because the internet can reach anyone, like the Tower of Babel). I think it's fair to give someone the benefit of the doubt who was born in 1915 that they didn't predict that starting in the 90s something called the internet would be invented when these people made their decisions.
And yeah, the people who started promoting cultural Marxism in the 60s weren't boomers, they were people who held office and were part of the Silent Generation. People pick up on the Boomer stuff because many in that generation fell for the kool-aid among that generation....yeah they were dumb college kids and a lot of what you believe in college forms you for life....Every generation falls for their respective lies. Not to mention, the liberal beliefs that people that age accepted then, were a bit different than what they morphed into. It was a trojan horse and the changes happened gradually enough that many in that age demographic didn't notice how the narrative shifted. So you're blaming that generation for accepting ideas they never accepted. The most you can fault that age demographic is not being hyper-vigilant to see the nice sounding ideas being twisted beyond recognition in subtle ways. It's the frog boiling in the pot analogy.
The only thing YOU can do, is
- Figure out how to invent a time machine and try to stop whoever you think started the problem (in which case your actual priority should be to stop the atheist scientists who came up with the lie of evolution and billions of years in the 1800s to undermine God's word)
or
- Assuming you don't succeed in creating a time machine, you need to focus on YOU and YOUR generation and what's happening right NOW currently. Forget about what may or may have been done in the past, because all that will do is turn you into a perpetual victim, where instead of it being like the black community [It's systemic racism, it's the man, it's whitey, it's colonial mindset, it's the government screwing us over, it's slavery, it's jim crow]
It'll become "It's Jews, it's boomers, it's the government, it's the silent generation, it's gen X, it's "insert group here"
The opposition doesn't care which group you make your whipping boy, as long as it accomplishes the goal of keeping you in a doomer "why even bother, I was cursed from the start" mindset.
Work on you, call out globalists by all means, but boomers are too vague and actually completely inaccurate.
Globalists exist in every generational group, every ethnicity, etc. That's why you can effectively call out them specifically. Even with Jews, the globalist anti-white Jews tend to be atheistic, pro-palestine, anti-zionist (think the ADL) yet they get lumped in wtih Orthodox, pro Israel Jews who tend to be more Conservative, support Trump, endorse American values, so this is why conflating the two does a lot of damage because supporting Israel is usually what CONSERVATIVE Jews do, like Sid Rosenberg who is a huge Trump supporter, while these atheistic leftist "jews in name only" try to distance themselves from "zion-ism" and intentionally conflate anti-globalism with anti-semitism, something the Orthodox Jews don't tend to do.
Globalism is simple. Do you support an atheistic idea of a utopian future where God is removed and all Biblical values are removed, and all nations are aligned with the world's systems values that are ultimately about subverting God's word and oppossing God? Then you're a globalist. Just go on Reddit to see millions of examples of globalists and they run the gamut of age and ethnicity.
Do you at the very least, support the general Biblical values and traditional decency even if you yourself are not a Christian, then congratulations, you're not a Globalist, and many Jews, especially Orthodox and pro Israel Jews fall into this category. It doesn't mean they're not going to go to hell and that they're not deceived, as only trusting in Christ saves you from God's wrath, but it means that they as human beings are people you'd be wise not to lump in the same category as globalists and conflate what atheistic Jews do, with what a large swath of what pro-Israel Jews do.
It's like conflating Thomas Sowell with the ghetto culture.
Except there's far more of an epidemic that is statistically alarming with the black community where people like Thomas Sowell are unfortunately anomalies.
With the Jews, it's far more of a split, where you have the small percentage of full woke leftist globalists who are totally atheistic, and the rest of the Jews running the gamut from average person (who are hard to predict their political beliefs like it would be hard to predict an Indian or Asians political beliefs) to very Orthodox (who tend to be more conservative).
The point is, neither Jew nor boomer are good targets and will just make sure you're missing the mark and being pulled slightly off target.
Just focus on the actions of globalism and you'll accurately call out the right target.....that being GLOBALISTS.
Don't aim for boomers and Jews and hope you hit the globalists as a side effect, just call out the globalists as that's your target.
Sid Rosenberg is an old Jew and he's Orthodox, pro America, pro-Trump, anti-globalism.
Chuck Schumer is an old Jew and he's atheistic, anti-America, anti-Trump, pro-globalism.
If I said "Jews and boomers are the problem", I'd be equally hitting Chuck Schumer and Sid Rosenberg with the same brush. [Sid Rosenberg being 58 is 3 years younger than a boomer, but most people would lump a late 50 year old in that category].
Whereas if I called out globalist beliefs and actions, I'd be rightly separating Sid Rosenberg and Chuck Schumer into two different categories and the message would not be confused.
Perfect comment!
This concept is so simple, I am baffled by people who don't get it.
I'm not good at geopolitics, economy, etc.
I just know, either through my parents, or elsewhere how when products used to say "made in America" two things were true. We had a better economy, and those products lasted forever because they were higher quality.
And that incentivizing overseas globalist economy means less made in America, which means less quality and less jobs, which has a snowball effect of less cash injected in our own markets. People who have jobs here, spend money here and that money goes to other places in this country and on and on.
It seems pretty logical to me.
No argument here haha even if the performance doesn't bother me. But what a bizarre casting choice. Why would you cast the grumpiest man in Hollywood in a zany goofy role like that?
You sir are a genius
Agreed!
EDIT: To add, it does seem like people are treating the left more this way nowadays and it's encouraging to see.
The right is becoming far less obsessed with optics and are keen to the left's games
Probably, in fact, if this were proposed under the Harris administration that they were trying to turn into a reality, would a single Redditor argue against this law?
They could preface with an hour long page essay about how they're very "anti-racist" and everything, but are just a little concerned about the legal can of worms here, and they'd still be banned from Reddit for hate speech.
Ah yeah, my bad, I read the first part of your post, and I'm so ADHD right now that as I was reading the second part of your post, my brain forgot the context like I was a goldfish with ten second memory and thought I was reading a scenario.
Pretty great, I'd love to see the hilarity of this of anyone who tries to argue against this being accused as a TERF or something.
Ah, good point
Even then, wouldn't it be better to give them the best shot possible by rebranding under a different name to keep the stink of "Sony originals" away from those games?
Yeah I did and agreed, hilarious
You're European right? I know that how garbage the culture is varies from country to country, so how woke is your country's TV?
EDIT: Nevermind, I think I'm mixing you up with another user, I think one that uses the name John Smith or something.
Do they have ads?
The reason I stopped with Tubi is I'd be whisked away into an idyllic time and place like with the Andy Griffith show and then, boom, an ad pops up and it's full of all the modern racial politics and feminism and suddenly my blood pressure is rising.
It defeats the entire purpose of watching old shows when I get hit in the face with "THE MESSAGE" ™ every 12 minutes.
I would not mind advertisements at all if it were just some benign commercial selling you insurance with zero agenda...stuff like in the 90s, normal calm commercials that are inoffensive and chill.
Now commercials literally make me angry.
It's funny because I listen to AM radio now because Anthony Cumia is on WABC 77, and because it's a conservative station with likely an older audience, one of the commercials is one of Ryan Reynolds mobile phone commercials that I've seen on TV, only here, he talks in a calm, relaxing tone, like how I remember commercials being when I'd visit my grandparents.
He tones down his "ryan reynolds-ness" for the sake of catering to a different demographic, which lets me know that advertisers know how to be less obnoxious, they just choose not to.
Dude, me and you have the same cut-off year!
That's my cutoff year in theory, but in practice I pretty much only ever watch things from like 2005 and earlier.
Late 60s to the end of the 90s is my Goldilocks zone and it's rare I watch something else.
So many great films from that era that I haven't seen yet.
What tipped you off...was it the "you don't deserve my chaiiild....(cut to her walking like the strong independent empowered black woman that she is)....she comes from a long line of revolutionaries (cut to various BLM type montages, bombs, police in riot gear).
Ditto on Shooter. Great movie.
Yeah, that was actually a movie we watched in the screenwriting class I took in high school.
It definitely fell susceptible to that trend, but I remember just about every movie me and my mom would walk out of for a pretty long period we'd go "it wasn't bad, but I hate the shaky cam....I can't make out the action and it gives me a headache". Shaky cam was a plague on movies for way too long and I'm glad it's been abandoned at this point. As someone pointed out, John Wick helped a lot.
As for the grittiness, to me it's an acting style that we've never really gotten away from since I'd say the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I know I'll get crap for saying this, but I think the Lord of the Rings was a big milestone in changing the style of acting in movies and not for the better.
Acting now tries to "sell a realism" instead of trying to sell their character.
There's a great middle ground between absurdely expresssionistic acting like the silent film era, and attempts at gritty realism, and I feel that the perfect middle ground was between the 1960s - 1990s.
They dialed it down to an artform where you believed the reality because they expressed the character properly.
Indiana Jones isn't like any person you've ever met, and that's why you believe him, because it sells the reality comes about by seeing a very specific personality expressed on screen as good as possible.
If they tried to make Indiana Jones talk and act like "realism" you'd get something that feels less real. This is a difficult concept to convey because acting is so subjective, but a writer, director and actors attempt to sell "realism" doesn't feel as real as when a writer, director and actor each do their job to sell "wonder" and "movie magic".
Yeah, that's the thing I like about Bourne 1 is the girl is one of the few women characters in movies that I like. Cute in that distinctly European way, and the soundtrack and fashion styles and editing feels very early 2000s/late 90s and the action wasn't shaky cam.
So it's an enjoyable watch for feeling like a time capsule even if it's not remotely a go-to movie for me.
But where that first one felt like that short period of when we had cultural specificity, and decade uniqueness, the sequels feel like that monolithic culture that doesn't feel distinct that's been the same for like 20 years now.
Like Bourne supremacy feels like basically any movie from the 2010s unlike the first Bourne which did feel like an early 2000s movie (which is a good thing)
He’s almost always right. Where he’s wrong is scale, degrees, and single-mindedness.
But the problem of feminism is NEARLY impossible to over-state. As I saw someone say a few weeks ago, feminism is the final boss for the west.