Yeah, went to the plex reddit and people are saying it's just going to shoot them in the foot. Plex is clearly wanting to get people into the "paying monthly aka you won't own anything" model and stay on the hamster wheel, but what's actually going to happen is people are just going to go to Jellyfin, then Plex goes out of business. Retarded.
That one. I have the 16 TB version for Plex and it's served me well. I think I paid 150 or so for it back a few years ago
22 TB there is 550, but was like 200 something within this year.
I have a 6 TB I currently was using for rom backups, but trying to do a complete PS2 and Gamecube set has made me realize if I want to have Wii, Wii U, plenty of switch, and plenty of PS3 and 360, I'm gonna need a lot more space. 6 Tb is just enough for all the old consoles and almost all PS2 and Gamecube. But Wii, Wii U, 360, Switch, PS3...forget about it.
Then there's all the other stuff you'd want to archive like Teknoparrot and all the other obscure hyper specific arcade type games
Yeah exactly.
this is what happened to amazon luna recently. I never bought games from this service and I'm on PC. Any games claimed that were part of amazon prime were always linked to the various services like GOG and Epic Games that Amazon Prime gaming partners with. But if you only owned a TV and were reliant on Cloud streaming for gaming, and you bought those games, they're gone now. Technically you still "own" them, but unless you're willing to shell out for a computer to play them on, which a person who only played cloud games wasn't wanting to do in the first place, in all practical sense, they lost games they paid for.
I hope you're right
Yeah, I fed this conversation into AI and it's indeed bleak. I wanted to get a new mega HDD like 20 Tb to store full libraries of games, including PS3 before the internet archive gets inevitably shut down in our draconian times. 22 TB 1 year ago was like 200 something dollars.
Now it's 550 dollars. I have the pressure of wanting to wait until the price is lower, but also concerned if I wait too long, the ability to download huge libraries like PS3 will become shut down. We're so close to being like North Korea with internet. Very little is standing in the way of that, so I wanted an archive of roms before the inevitable happens.
I'm aware of people talking about AI huge buying leading to increased prices. I just didn't know or wasn't sure how much is opportunistic price raising that doesn't reflect reality. Like how fast food used "covid" to justify sit down restaurant prices for what is supposed to be 5 dollar meals. I never believed the economic justification from fast food.
I don't follow closely enough or are aware of all the ins and outs to know if the AI was the reason to hike prices or the excuse to hike prices, or if it's a mix of both.
I already own it, but I wouldn't have at 750 dollars. When I got it, it was 200 dollars for life, which was reasonable considering it's user friendly and convenient and I had to keep in mind other people in the household who aren't so good with technology.
What is going on with companies? It's just absurd
A few months ago I could get a large HDD for like 200 bucks. Checked back like two weeks later and it was like 500 bucks.
It should be illegal all the price hiking. Maybe it is. I'm not an economist.
I agree the sarcasm was not necessary, but it was only the first sentence.
Everything else wasn't emotional, it was a purely clinical breakdown.
I don't know where you see "overly emotional" in my response.
Second, nothing was non-sequiturs that failed to address your point or had no logic or reasoning.
Your entire point was just "The talmud". So to address that point, I have to 1 define what the talmud is, which I did in my first sentence, which to be fair I led with sarcasm which wasn't necessary and set the wrong tone.
then I had to give a historical analogue. The Talmud existing and using it to paint Jews is like knowing that SCUM (the society for cutting up men aka the let's kill men play that was created by feminists) exists and hating feminists for it. I am anti-feminist because of the behavior and actions of feminists, not because of the writings of their most radical adherents.
I don't see in everyday life the manifestations of Talmudic beliefs except for extreme fringe cases like Jeffery Epstein types. Again not the average Jew. The average feminist is awful. I don't need to point to edge cases to dislike feminists.
If I could see the average Jew, I would indict them if their behavior warranted it. But I can't see the average Jew because the average Jew runs the gamut of different shades of American. Some Jews are like that pizza reviewer guy who's really famous, Dave something, others work in tech and who's biggest concern in life is becoming the top speedrunner for a niche game when he's not working.
That's my point.
Islam shows itself to be a scurge by the actions of the mass everywhere they go. With Jews, there really isn't a mass to point to "racial indictment" them with. You have visible elites and you have averages who blend together with "America" as a general and are no more visibly damaging to the country than the Asian working in the same company that the Jew is.
I'll put it this way. Your neighborhood can't be white anymore as a hypothetical, and it can't be Asian, so it has to be Muslim, ghetto black, Indian or Jewish. What do you choose? I choose the Jews. We all know the outcomes of the other 3 categories and in all scenarios your neighborhood becomes more leftist so that's unnavoidable, so then the choice becomes who is the least disruptive to my life.
Jews are going to be the least disruptive in terms of turning the neighborhood.
Anthony Cumia, radio host, "inflammatory" conservative, when he lived in New York, he was the only non Jew in his New York rich neighborhood he lived in. He talks about how he was the only house that had Christmas decorations at Christmas which he found funny.
If it were a Muslim neighborhood, his house probably would have been attacked. If it were a ghetto black neighborhood, he'd be afraid to leave his home. If it were an Indian neighborhood the cultural differences would be so vast he'd never want to talk to his neighbors as there'd be very little common ground to talk about anything. Indians don't make for the best conversationalists when you're an American in my experience.
So while you're saying it's a non-sequitur, it's not, because it's all to say, whatever influence the Talmud has it's not enough to shape the average Jew. Does it shape it's strongest adherents? Absolutely. Just like Satanists, they come in two forms. Edgy satanists who are just like "do drugs and listen to metal", and read some of the Satanic Bible but couldn't quote it, and eventually get out of that phase and cringe looking back at it, and true believers in the Anton Lavey philosophy and internalize "do what thou wilt" to the logical extreme and become hedonists who kill themselves at the age of 40 because their dopamine is fried and they've led an empty life.
I want the same thing you want.
But the thing about Jews is, as it's pointed out, they have an in-group bias. Anyone on this forum would agree it's a bizarre twisted thing that white people don't have an in-group bias.
It's not wrong that Jews have an in-group bias, it's wrong that white people don't have one.
Then you have that Jews are very intelligent, especially in the type of thinking that allows them to excel in academia and arts, and you have a very logical reason why they're "overrepresented".
Complaining that they're over-represented and that this must because an injustice is being done is the same thing the black community does about "the man", "whitey keeping me down".
They assume it's a nefarious plot that white people are more successful than black people. No, we're more successful because of -insert literally 100 reasons-.
Feminists do the same thing, they don't understand why men are more successful. You try to explain it to them and they go "that sounds like patriarchy excusing to me".
For Jews it is logical that they are successful in America in many institutions.
As Thomas Sowell has pointed out, he has never, in anywhere he's travelled in the world found "proportional demographics". He'll find asian countries where the minority asians rule over the majority asians.
He's never found proportional representation anywhere. And that's because people are not blank slates. They have different values, different goals, different intelligence levels.
Just take this aspect with Jews. White people, particularly Christians are encouraged away from the arts. It is considered a godless industry and most Christian parents will discourage Christian children away from it, and for good reason. Better to have your child not corrupted than just assume the child will not succumb to the temptations of the industry.
Jews don't have an aversion to the art, nor do atheist god-hating liberals, so is it any wonder that the arts are not filled with Christians, but with godless people and Jewish people?
If black people cared about acting as much as they cared about sports, you would see an "overrepresentation" of black people in acting (before the forced diversity days) but you don't see that because black people generally don't want to become an actor.
So you're left with gay drama kids who's parents don't care, and Jews who encourage the arts.
So the over representation is natural and logical, not a sinister plot.
And when the zeitgeist of the day was just to make a giant hit that makes everyone money, Hollywood wasn't particularly woke.
Now that the zeitgeist is to preach wokeness, that's what happens, and whoever would be in power when the zeitgeist shifted would have shifted in turn regardless of ethnicity.
Fair enough, I'm not a Catholicism expert. The point is there's an analogue there in the sense that if a church father said something really bad, one time in a long history of many people and many statements, anti-Catholics would use that as cherry picked ammunition, despite the fact it's not unanimous or representative of all Catholics.
Similarly the scattered writings of the Talmud are not necessarily representative of Jews to the degree the anti-Jews want to make it out to be.
Ah yes, that completely average Jew that is the scattered rabbis over a few hundred years, and then of the contemporary rabbis, there's splits over whether they even preach it, and if those choose to, there's debate over what parts they preach or don't.
There's Jewish rabbis who choose to only preach what was in the Torah aka the original 5 books of the Bible.
Others use the Old Testament. Others use the Talmud as well and of those some preach in a way to promote Jewish supremacy and it's more vile things to justify beliefs.
Again, if the Quaran were what we measured Muslims by, very little people would have critiques about Muslims despite the fact the Quaran is awful.
It is the behavior of Muslims that people have an issue with. The terrorism and everything else, and unlike Jews, the averages, the numbers play out in a way that is not in the muslims favors.
You can see a lot of average aka non powerful muslims who are highly impacted by the Quaran by their actions.
The average Jew, aka not the globalists or the Jeffery Epsteins of the world, it's hard to see much to any demonstration to an allegience to the Talmud.
The Talmud is like the the writings of the church fathers. Catholics pick and choose especially depending on the individual catholic. A "progressive" catholic like the pope will pick church father writings that seem "nice" while ignoring any that seem harsh.
Same goes with Jews relationship with the Talmud, and even then, whereas Catholics have it as dogma that church fathers are on equal footing with scripture, Judaism doesn't have that dogma in regards to the Talmud. The Talmud's legitimacy in regards to the old testament according to their religion is debated and fractured all over the place.
The same opinion I have of black supermacists. I don't like them. What's your point?
I agree, we're experiencing a great falling away in America with Christianity. It's in bad shape, 100 percent agreed. The only point is if we were the UK, it would have happened sooner as they experienced post-Christian society much sooner than we did.
In the 1960s, they were casually praising Jesus in films and TV. It wasn't even thought of as a big deal to have a character explicitly reference Jesus in a positive way. It was just so normalized in culture that even the atheistic writers in Hollywood would know it would come off as odd if nothing Christian is ever mentioned in a positive way.
In the 1960s in the UK, media was much more flippant towards religion and Christianity. Mocking Christianity was a common thing with UK media, and was anathema in the United States. It would be death to your program if you tried it.
Ken Ham, who's from Australia, talks about how Australia was post-Christian way more than America was far before America was. How what we're seeing now in America, was pretty much what it was like when he was a relatively young man in the 70s in Australia.
Yeah I'm not praising the state of Christianity in America now, except for one point, that is there's still a bit of a fight here. In France, there's no fight. They're even more literal in being post-Christian. Like practically no one knows someone that is a Christian in France, at least if I'm to go by testimonies of people who were atheists in France and became Christian. They say you practically never even encounter someone who's a Christian in France. It's practically foreign to them.
The elite western Jews tend to be anti-Israel, with the more Orthodox Jews being more pro Israel.
The same Jews who own the networks pushing degeneracy, also push "pro-palestine" agendas.
Almost every zionist Jew I've observed is more politically conservative or at least not as woke as the typical elites.
For example, Roseanne Barr, Sid Roseanberg, and Michael Savage. What do they all have in common? They're all Jewish, all pro Israel, and all hated by the left including leftist Jews.
Now the list of pro-Palestenian leftist Jews is legion.
The "zionists" are rarely the same group who's promoting degeneracy and the degeneracy pushers rarely ever take Israel's side over the "poor palestenians". It's like a concrete wall that's never crossed, because most western powerful Jews have no allegience to Israel, their allegience is to whatever keeps them powerful and that is wokeism and wokeism doesn't like Jews.
The more Jewish a Jew gets, the less woke they get and the more pro Israel they get.
That's my observation, and it plays out. The people who voted for Donald Trump who were Jewish were the Orthodox Jews. The academic leftists who would love Trump if they were primarily about Israel, HATED Trump.
I don't know that it follows that if Nazi Germany had won, that there wouldn't be similar outcomes. 1940s England is unrecogonizable from 2026 England. Why do people assume that 1930s Germany would be consistent with 2026 Nazism. It's very likely that in an alternative history where Nazis won, 2026 Nazis would be lamenting how far things had fallen.
Even Hitler was praising Islam as a religion for being "strong" back then, even saying he'd prefer Germany had Islam over Christianity for what he perceieved as Christian weakness. If Rome with it's might fell into degeneracy and Barbarians raping the Roman people, why are people so confident Nazi Germany wouldn't have fallen into decay?
Most constitutions don't last more than a few decades, and the reason is because they are not founded on Christian principles. Our constitution is the oldest still active constitution precisely because it was founded on Christian principles which is why it's so attacked from the God-hating left.
Nazi Germany would have not been founded on Christianity, so in only a matter of time it would have succombed to the same fate as Rome. Whether it would have been 2026 or 2046, it really doesn't make that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.
Prove to me that Jews are uniquely evil without needing a pre-supposition that Jews are evil.
For instance, the statement by leftists that white men are evil is justified by believing that white men are evil.
And then because there's enough white men in powerful positions, they can use that to justify their beliefs ignoring why white men are in those positions, and also ignoring that a white CEO is rarely representative of white people in general. White CEOs are orders of magnitude more woke and compliant with globalism than the average white person who lives in a suburb.
Now I don't think people could prove that Jews are evil by pointing to average Jews. They must point to powerful Jews in order to make their case.
And yet when I want to make the case that the black community is a serious problem in America; I don't need to ever cite a single powerful mouthpiece for black people not even once. I never need to cite MSNBC, Don Lemon, Al Sharpton, NAACP, BLM leaders or anyone who has even an iota of power.
All of those are completely irrelevent when I have tens of thousands of examples of observable behaviors of the average. I could just say "type in black people twitter" right now and you'll be spoiled for choice. You have to actively suppress looking at black behavior in order to ignore it.
You have to actively look for Jewish people and academics and things like ADL in order to justify conclusions about Jews.
If you can't draw a conclusion by looking at the average person, than you can't draw a conclusion.
The reason I can say that white people aren't stereotypable, is because show me the average white person. You can't. That's why black comedians can easily lampoon themselves but have to reach for narratives to mock white people because the averages show us that white people are not easily classifiable into stereotypes. Typically to mock white people, you have to choose a hyper specific type of white person, like rednecks, as white people are more of a jack of all trades type of people.
Why do I bring this up?
Because I've never seen the assessment of Jews be made except by the position of power examples. They never use the neurotic guy in Brooklyn who works in a tailor store. They use the spokesman for the ADL, or the academic in Harvard who's true religion is leftism, not Judaism.
Again, if you can't make the case by looking at the general average, you don't have a case. It's why we can make conclusions about India.
Because all you need to do with India is go on Google street view and look for a clean place in India. So the averages tell us the truth.
What is the average Jew? Well the average Jew isn't powerful, that's for one thing. Other than that, I'd like to know what the average Jew is like because I'm never told. I'm shown cherry picked things and told this means all Jews are like this. If this were done for powerful white people you'd conclude that white people are leftists, but it would be a poor way to approach a people group, an unreliable sample pool.
Yes, but a long time ago. Black and white, girls dress is red, one of the guys shoots people with a sniper rifle for fun, and I remember the ending where Schindler wishes he had given more away. That's all I remember.
You're a good drawer dude! I suck at art, I'm still at stick figure levels. That looks like it's from an animated film.
I don't have any off the top of my head. Just surface level likes of films. Nothing immediately jumps to mind as far as a deep recommendation. I like all sorts of films, but I don't have anything primed in "analysis" deep terms, just like more like, 12 monkeys is really good and I thought it sucked the first time I watched it, but I really appreciated it this last time I watched it, sort of thing. Surface level.
That's awesome! Good luck on the novel. I'd be interested in checking that out and buying a copy when you're finished.
I actually wrote an article about this topic using one single movie.
A lot of movies are propaganda and I'd agree that Schindler's List is not meant to entertain you. But if you read my article, I point out how some films were not only entertaining, they were uplifting in their message. In this case, Soldier from 1998.
https://toomanyopinions.substack.com/p/soldier-1998-an-underrated-gem-and
Spielberg had magic absolutely. The way he wrote characters, the way he filmed and blocked scenes. There's a video talking about blocking, and shows how Spielberg with clever blocking, takes one scene in Jaws, aka without a cut, and gets like 12 shots, by having the scene be on a ferry which constantly changes the background, and has the characters move about on the ferry coming closer or further away from the camera giving distinct blocks.
Most good filmmakers have 1/5 of the great filmography that he does. Ridley Scott is praised and while I think he's a good cinematographer, I think as a general film maker he makes me want to fall asleep.
Is there propaganda to be found in Spielberg's films? Yes, but I don't think it's that extensive and don't know why he's singled out. His films primarily seem to be about entertainment.
Two things can be true. Someone have crap politics in real life, AND be talented in their craft; and those crap politics can seep in.
This can be observed in like 90% of the music industry.
I don't know why someone wants to rob Spielberg of his accolades as a film maker. You can hate the guy and still give him props.
I can't stand the politics of Harrison Ford or Deniro, but they're great at what they did in the 90s and earlier.
I think a lot of the "Spielberg is a propogandist" comes from ET because they see it as him trying to make you sympathetic for illegal aliens.
I watched the film for the first time a few years ago (or at least the first time that I have any memory of, I'm certain I saw it as a kid) and to me that's a reach. You have to want to see that film that way in order to see it as an illegal alien allegory. The government reacts realistically to an alien from outer space and the kid reacts and sees things realistically to encountering a friendly alien. It plays things out realistically if E.T were real and were discovered by kids. The guy who made District 9 and Elysium, now that was actual illegal alien propaganda, and it's not subtext; it's just TEXT.
There are parallel movies where they're trying to push an agenda. Like Planet of the Apes 1968, which surprisingly is not the agenda people think it is. They will tell you it's a "racism parallel" when if you watch the movie, it has almost nothing to do with a racism/slavery thing. It's actually an anti-Christian movie as the plot of the movie is all about how "a talking, reasoning human challenges the religious apes who oppose evolution and the underdog scientists and are trying to control the masses and this human threatens their power by making the populace believe the scientists. Spoiler alert it turns out the religious apes who promoted apes as uniquely made knew all along that evolution was true but were trying to hold onto power. This is a explicit attack on Christianity and a promotion of the Science™
Rod Serling is a true propagandist, though still a brilliant writer (he wrote Planet of the Apes).
So when I watch Spielberg movies I see some propaganda. His most blatant propaganda is in Jurassic Park. Even removing the evolutionary and millions of years lies, it's got feminism pushed in various ways in that movie, sometimes pretty overtly.
Schindler's List? That's just a typical type of movie made about the Holocaust. Any filmmaker going for a dramatic film on that topic would have struck a similar tone.
I think the worst he did was in Saving Private Ryan making all the nazis look like modern day skinhead neo nazis in order to make the audience make a connection despite the fact actual nazi soldiers were not bald and actually mocked the russians for being bald. To me that's compromising your film for modern day optics and that one is irritating because how can you meticulously make one of the most realistic war films with an opening scene that still hasn't been topped and then do historical revisionism like that.
I mean, one of the best things that can be said about Steven Spielberg is he made films that made you feel good, barring the exceptions. In the 70s and 80s he made you feel good. Meanwhile Stanley Kubrick who was more or less not much of a propagandist to my eyes made utterly demoralizing films, as did a lot of filmmakers in that era. Not that a depressing film is bad. I'm not taking the position that all art should be happy. But when that's all that's available such as in the 70s, it has a decaying effect on people, much like we see demoralization today from films constant finger waggling and woke moralizing. Films today make you feel fundamentally bad. Films in the 70s made you feel fundamentally pessimistic. Both were done for different reasons (political ideologues vs auteurs who want to push for art and the boundaries of art are usually depressing) but they both have a similar effect psychologically on the mass of people.
The fact that Spielberg made movies that made you feel happy when you left puts him in the good class of filmmakers in my opinion on that merit alone. I would say Spielberg was an entertainer who sometimes had politics seep in; whereas Rod Serling was a message pusher who was so brilliant he was still entertaining. It's very different. And the guy who made District 9 and Elysium is squarely in the Rod Serling camp except he's a subpar writer and filmmaker so he doesn't get away with it, whereas Rod Serling did.
Rod Serling also had the benefit (benefit for us) of making his biggest show in a time when the studios reigned him in. Lots of Twilight Zone episodes would have been way more preachy if Serling got his way.
Yeah, there's this Scottish guy who I follow on Youtube, very funny guy, named 6oodfella.
He's often made the point that as much as he doesn't like black women and finds them to be horrifically obnoxious; he feels sorry for them, because black men are women.
Women want stable people, emotionally stoic people. Flying off the handle at every little sleight and perceived "disrespect" is women's territory. So black women look at all these black men and go "they act like women"; so in that respect he feels sorry for black women because their own dating pool is limited to essentially women when you look at the behavior.
I've said it before, I'll say it again, and you've hit on the inversion of them thinking ghetto black is cool. It's about the least cool thing there is. Like a point I made a day ago I think it was, in an action movie, who's the cool guy? The silent one who walks away from an explosion without looking at it, or the sidekick played by Sean William Scott who does something minor and gloats about it for half the movie?
Now which do black people, like football players act more like, the stoic "let my actions speak for me" or the mockworthy sidekick?
If they score a touchdown they have to make the game pause for 30 seconds so they can motion to their crotch like Michael Jackson or pantomime a dance. It's the least cool thing ever.
And it makes sense. Real strong masculinity is seen in fathers. So many black men have two things to look to growing up, their mothers, or other gangs, who themselves were raised by mothers. So you get what women do when women try to portray masculinity, and it always comes off as cartoonish because they fundamentally don't understand it. That's why anything "masculine" or "tough" on the surface needs to be self broadcasted with a neon sign thus proving they're not truly masculine or tough. It's exactly what women do when they portray girl bosses.
Truly masculine people don't need to say "look world, isn't this tough", they just exist and are masculine.
I mean what I'm trying to say, which is essentially what you're saying could have a book written on it so there's a lot of disjointed and not fully fleshed out things of what I'm trying to say; aka we could both give like a thousand more analogies or examples, but I have to end it somewhere even though I feel like I could rant on this very point you've hit on all night if I felt inclined to.
It's the first time I'm seeing this woman, but the banner on the back shows her podcast is called "uncomfortable with amna (something, last name cut off)"
I imagine conversations with people like Jared Taylor are the norm for her based on that podcast name. And you don't have a podcast like that if you freak out and don't try to appear cool headed in a conversation.
Obviously she wants to make money and if she cut off guests everytime it got uncomfortable her brand she's built would collapse and whatever viewership she's getting aka money would disappear.