PBS uploaded the video of Kirk's wife smiling and people, including myself chocked this up to PBS being propogandist scumbags.
I did an experiment and downloaded their video and uploaded it, and these were the AI auto generated picks.
The thing about auto youtube thumbnails is they always pick happy faces over sad faces because in general people will click a happy attractive face over a sad face.
As someone who's uploaded videos to Youtube, youtube's auto thumbnails almost always go for moments where smiling happens because it's "good for the algorithim"
Those were the only 3 choices I was given without having to create a custom thumbnail.
Since PBS news uploads like 10 videos a day, and their videos are just news, they go with whatever the auto thumbnail is.
Me and you both. I first was aware of him like five years ago just with apologetics type stuff. Thought he was a pretty good thinker when it came to rebutting atheists.
I unsubscribed when he semi-justified BLM and their "summer of love" with something akin to "BLM has a bit of a point because something something historical institutional racism"
It feels like he wouldn't be able to tell that BLM is satanic even if they were murdering people, burning down buildings, and looting stores...oh wait...
So yeah, it's frustrating when people mistake and erroneously push liberal framings as Biblical compassion.
The verse is to be innocent as doves and wise as serpents. If you can't discern the times and the liberal thinking, you're not being as wise as a serpent.
He made a youtube post and tweeted out
"Man, I'm so sad to hear about Charlie Kirk! I didn't agree with him on things, but this breaks my heart and makes me sick to my stomach. Praying for his family. What a horrible tragedy!"
Why the clarification needed? When a celebrity dies, I don't go "I didn't agree with him on things". Oh it's because he's a right leaning voice who spoke boldly.
I'm a Christian and this guy has been irritating me for a while.
Uses the Bible to try to justify illegal invasion, tries to paint the right as too hateful even though our response to Charlie Kirk has been prayer and communicating.
Here's another video of his that points his liberal framework and how he's mixing it up with Christianity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-uVr33H5Yk
The video I linked just there, this was my comment response way back then when it was uploaded
"The Christians today who are like "both sides are bad" would have been in Nazi Germany and gone "hey, theres bad people on each side"
One side wants to kill babies, sexualize children, stands for everything God hates....and the other side makes memes dunking on the left.....man it's so hard to figure out what the more moral party is.
Christians are LESS political than they used to be. In the early 2000s Christians would protest Marilyn Manson concerts, and fight against the war on Christmas and protest abortion clinics. NOW its a good and rare day if Christians protest abortion clinics and drag queen story hours.
What's different is the VISIBILITY of people's politics because of social media.
People mistake an increased visibility with an increase in politics.
The fact is, Christians need to be more involved in the war on culture, not less, because in our absence, pagan beliefs will carve the moral landscape.
Go ask Lebanon which was a Christian nation from the 40s til the 70s about how their passivism "just be kind and tolerant and neglect Jesus' command to be wise as serpents" attitude worked out for them.
Now in all things, we are to be in the Spirit and not be ungodly and full of the fruit of the flesh which is anti-Christ. But this "nice" Christianity which scolds with harshness "safe" topics like "right wing extremism", but uses kiddy gloves and a much different tone about things like black culture and black crime or feminism, things like that, injustices that you can't go "too hard" about in this culture is very disheartening.
As it says "A false balance is an abomination to the Lord".
Well we have a very false balance and unfortunately, many churches in their fear of man, and fear of culture add to that false balance by their giving different considerations and weights to different topics based on how they'll be perceived.
Understand this. Christians are not getting more angry about politics than we used to. We're getting more angry at more abominations arising in this country. If you take an assessment of the time, you'll see this isn't the time of the 1980s where people had "political differences". We are in a battle between opposing religions, one that is Christian, and one that is pagan. Now this was true in the 1980s as well, but the average person still had a semi-biblical worldview back then. It's a radically different time now.
If a Christian is a soldier, is his shooting of enemies on the battlefield him walking in the flesh? No, Christians can be soldiers, there's no command that it's immoral.
Well likewise, we're in a cultural battle, a very severe one and Christian churches typically now shy away from going out and preaching what is actually a merciful message that is to repent otherwise you'll die in your sins and go to hell....oh they'll have no problem preaching to their own congregation about how "being American and conservative" won't save you and how you're just as destined for hell as the woke on the left....Christians routinely hear that message in pews, but when it comes to the woke left, churches generally speaking are doing them an evil disservice by not preaching repentance and scaring them about the reality of hell. They won't go and preach some harsh truths to some of the most sacred cows in our society. Instead they'll have outreach programs where they go and hug them and just tell them they're loved, while saving the harsh sermons for their mostly white conservative congregates on Sunday morning.
The woke left have no shortage of people "supporting them" and being "nice to them". The church needs to understand that in a lot of ways, they're treating the pharisees of our time like the woman at the well, and treating the woman at the well of our times like the pharisees. This is an injustice and is a false balance and does a disservice to both parties. Failing to encourage the church as we see in all the epistles in the Bible, while leaving the unsaved uninformed about the terrifying state of not having Jesus' forgiveness, leaving you a child of wrath.
When Alice Cooper got saved, he was a heavy drunk, unrepentant, and it took reluctantly going to a church that kept preaching about sin leading you to hell for him to come back to God (He grew up in the church and was a pastors kid).
I believe if the average person who practices homosexuality, or is all about Black Lives Matter or other black supremacist groups, or anything else that is culturally acceptable went into your average church today, their flesh would not feel very attacked. They'd hear how the congregants need to stop being so divisive and start to make bridges, and that person would walk away not too challenged, with only the congregants going away feeling convicted.
You want to build a bridge? Preach God's word. Bring them across the bridge. The point of a bridge isn't to meet in the middle, it's to get people into the kingdom of light out of the kingdom of darkness.
Many churches seem to want to "have a conversation" on the middle of the bridge because it FEELS more humble, and FEELS more loving, but there's nothing loving about leaving someone unaware of the danger of hell and the state that they're in.
So I would say is preach the Bible not fearing who you offend on the right or the left, including even the most sacred of sacred cows in our society, and let God's word sort people out. "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow." Hebrews 4:12
It is my experience that many Christian leaders are happy to see the word of God be sharp for a Christian in terms of convicting them, but when a sacred cow comes along, they want to soften the blade so that the sting doesn't hurt so much.
If you try to soften the blade that is the word of God, you take away from it's ability to save, to heal, to pierce the soul. Let the word of God be sharp and let the culture be offended by it. It was never not going to be offended by the word of God, and if you're finding that you want to spare the culture from offense, you need to realize, that's not something found in the Bible and is actually opposite to a lot in the Bible.
This is not to say "go be jerks for Jesus" and mock people and yell at them. I would say Charlie Kirk is an example of someone who is strong and uncompromising without being mean. I would say he and Ken Ham are both good examples of how to stand strong on God's word without being a jerk."
Because, and this is a topic that goes back to if you look only at white gun violence, our gun violence is in line with European countries, Indianapolis has about the same percentage of black people compared to Chicago.
Both are about 28% black, who commit the majority of murders, so in that way I retract my statement that Chicago would be safe with lax gun laws.
Now we're talking about the cultural problem of violence in the black community which is not fixable with legislation (although eliminating incentive for welfare queens would do much good), but needs many things, such as fathers to stay with the home, get a job any job rather than resort to crime.
That community needs to repent and accept Christ, there's really no fixing that community apart from that.
Then why isn't Indiana known for its murder?
Because Indiana ISNT a gun free zone.
If Chicago allowed as lax of gun laws as Arizona or South Carolina, and every sane law abiding citizen easily got a gun, that city would be 10 times safer in a matter of days
Guns ARE heavily regulated, in fact to a degree that is easily arguable to be unconstitutional.
There's this false idea that's pushed by media that Europeans and even some Americans believe that you can just walk in with an ID into a gun shop and walk out with an AR-15 as easy as buying a birthday cake from the grocery.
We're not even allowed to own machine guns anymore when back in the day the tommy gun was actually marketed to farmers as a great defense weapon against bandits.
The most regulated cities in America are the most dangerous with guns.
Chicago, no guns allowed. New York City, no guns allowed....would you feel safer there or any of the other states and cities that have much laxer gun laws?
Let's change only the subject of Charlie Kirk's quote so you can see that what he's saying is completely rational.
Imagine the government and the left are trying to ban cars because some people die in car accidents. Charlie sees this as absurd as would anyone.
"some car deaths are necessary for us to still have our right to drive cars"
Obviously the point he's making is obvious when you see this. He's not saying that car deaths are a requirement to the right to own cars, merely that when the pros and cons of allowing the people to own cars vs not owning cars are weighed, the inevitable deaths that will happen from car deaths are necessary for the overall pro which far outweighs the cons. It's thinking with your head instead of your emotions.
If you took away everything that could potentially harm someone, you'd be living in the UK where they confiscate butter knives from your car, or declare a pencil a deadly weapon.
His point is nations that enforce constitutional rights, particularly those made for the benefit of the citizens, where some people die, is better than nations that strip those rights and take away freedom from the citizens and about the same amount of people die.
Mexico doesn't allow guns. I believe there's like a single gun store where you can legally buy guns in the entire country, and yet it's one of the most dangerous places on earth, with the Cartel having plenty of guns.
Anyone taking Charlies quote as some sort of Karmic point are intentionally not seeing the point he's making. And that's not even getting into the fact that he was specifically targeted and assassinated which is far rarer an occurrence and falls into a much smaller percentage than mere gun deaths. If a mall shooting happened and he happened to be an unfortunate bystander caught in the crossfire, the quote would be more apt, and while Charlie would still defend the 2nd Amendment, because defending the 2nd Amendment and not being pro killing are not mutually exclusive (quite the opposite in fact) at least then the Redditors would have a bit more leg to stand on.
But the fact that this was a targeted intentional assassination of Charlie Kirk himself, puts him in a small group of people in history, fairly seperate from the mere "death by gun" statistic which is highly inflated by gang violence, suicide, etc.
When you remove hispanic and black gun violence, we have gun violence akin to most European countries like Denmark, Finland, etc.
Appreciate it
You're mixing me up. We'll leave it at there's not any amount of me that could be described as "pro-Ukraine"
The factions would form instantaneously and naturally.
They've drawn a line not in sand, but in concrete.
Nowadays all I have to do is share the truth about "trangender" and people who would have no way of knowing correctly call me a Chritian, and say "You Christian right wing bigot".
The faction is between those who adhere to the death cult and those who don't.
In wars, you often have allies who don't 100% allign with you. That doesn't matter. Revolutionary war we were helped by France.
WW2 we helped nations we had little in common with.
But the hinge point on which the factions would be divided would be clear as crystal and would happen instantaneously.
I'm a big guy (muscular not fat) and it's not about simping.
And it isn't about women.
If it were a male cop whose weak about to get killed and you can prevent it, I would try to prevent it on the basis that it's better for an innocent person to live than to be murdered while you sit watching. If they have a gun, it's different unless I also have a gun.
I wouldn't look around for some other guys and tell them to put their life in danger.
I'm saying if I'm in the position where I'm standing by and watching like a referee to prove a point, I now am by choice in a situation where if murder happens, I share more culpability than if I never approached the situation in the first place and I don't want that on my conscience.
I'm actually ticked off the big guy came and subdued the man.
I would like to walk up as they request my help and say "this is what buying the feminist lies gets you....deal with him yourself"
Women need to stop getting bailed out
So there's no misunderstanding, I'm not saying let the criminal kill them.
If it were to escalate there of course I'd step in and not let people die I'd hope, but I'd stand there like a referee watching and letting them deal with it until then.
Then suggest after he gets free or a male police officer shows up and handles him and they're all winded that perhaps field work doesn't suit them and a desk role would be more fitting.
I'm not that ballsy socially so in reality I'd not do this but later that day in the shower I'd be replaying that scenario in my head and that's what I'd be doing in my head
It's what I'd hope I'd do at my ballsiest.
By the way, seeing someone apologize on the internet is something very rare and it's sad that it's hardly ever seen by anyone nowadays.
It takes someone with character to do that.
Wanted to let you know that I respect that, and that you possess a rare and good quality with that.
No worries brother! God bless!
Let's set a few things straight here.
- Nothing was directed at you. I had no one in mind when I made the post. You however made it personal, going for a personal attack because I expressed my dislike of a director when you said this
"Embarrassing take. When you knowingly have autism, you should think twice before proclaiming your retarded opinions."
All I was doing was expressing something I dislike. I like Tarantino movies for instance. I guarantee you there's people here who despise Tarantino who see him as subversive, anti-white, and even pretentious. I wouldn't necessarily say they're wrong, but I think his films are enjoyable. If someone ripped into Tarantino, I wouldn't insult them, I'd offer my perspective.
- After I elaborated on my opinion, you then say based on my inability to enjoy Christopher Nolan that I'm like a soul-less, joyless atheist. You're taking opinions of movie directors WAY too personally. And that sort of judgement is not something you should throw around lightly. I would not assess a persons spiritual state based on their taste in film. Some people only like comedies. Some people only like action movies. Some people only like Noir movies. Some people like a huge range of movies. You really can't tell much about a person by their taste in film. And to smear with one of the most offensive brushes you can wave at someone just because they express that they don't like a director and why they don't like it is not mature or prudent.
If you like Christopher Nolan, by all means enjoy him. There are movies and directors that I like that any number of these people on this forum could make fun of and tear apart because they don't like them. Everyone has opinions and they're free to say my takes are stupid, which people have done in the past.
You went too far with the personal attacks and implied I was making up my opinion, essentially lying about what I like and don't like to be contrarian which is why I elaborated and expressed that I don't like Christopher Nolan as a director full stop.
As for your argument that the "majority" of people like. That's ridiculous.
The majority of people like the Marvel constant quipping movies, but I bet you a good chunk of the people on this forum don't like that.
The majority of people in the 70s preferred ABBA over something like Pink Floyd or Black Sabbath. It didn't mean people who hated ABBA were morally bankrupt or lying. There was a time where Disco was super popular....I suppose the disco haters were just contrarians?
As far as pop culture goes, I don't like modernity, so most of entertainment falls into that realm.
Breaking Bad is my favorite TV show of all time. It's also one of the most popular shows in the eyes of the public of all time.
In that case, the popularity and my tastes match up. That rarely happens.
Video games didn't start embracing that modernity crap until around 2013 or so, so from the time I was a gamer until late PS3 generation, my tastes and the popular games of the time also lined up pretty well.
Now because I don't play modern games, my tastes don't line up.
I don't know how old you are, but I'm 33. If you live long enough, you'll reach an age where you hate the things that are popular.
My late grandpa basically only watched Gunsmoke, Bonanza, Columbo, John Wayne Western movies and sports. Because at some point his tastes and the tastes of the popular culture passed each other never to be seen again.
It happens to every person eventually, it's just because of the nature of modernity and my experience and displeasure with it, it's happened to me at an earlier age than it did typically to people in past generations.
EDIT: One other thing, I also want you to know that I have no desire to rob you of enjoyment of Christopher Nolan movies. There are movies that I refuse to look at analytically because they make me happy, either because of nostalgia or some other reason and no critic no matter how "smart" or well spoken they are is going to force me to view certain things the way they view it. My opinion was just that, an opinion. If his movies succeeded in entertaining you than he did his job. I'm just expressing my personal tastes.
I don't like Michael Bay. My mom likes Michael Bay. I've expressed why I don't care for his movies, and she's fine with it and it doesn't rob from her, her enjoyment of his movies. Just because I think analytically about certain things, doesn't mean you have to or even that if you did you would arrive at the same conclusion. I've always been an analyzer type of person, but I don't always have a negative opinion in my analysis nor do my analysis always align with people who are equally analytical. Movies are the type of thing where you can have 5 people get 5 different takeaways, or 5 people disliking it for 5 different reasons or 5 people liking it for 5 different reasons.
There's some people here, heck just this past week where I made a post about Indiana Jones and someone said that it's all pedophiles and Harrison Ford is a Jewish pedo and so is Steven Spielberg. There's some people who can't enjoy any level of Hollywood entertainment because to them it's all "Jewish propaganda". If that's their mindset, I'm not going to try to convince them to enjoy what I enjoy nor is it my job to.
I paid that comment no-mind. No one is going to argue me out of enjoying Indiana Jones or other Spielberg movies, and I don't expect that I am going to argue you out of enjoying Nolan films nor would I have any desire to take from you something you enjoy. My opinion wasn't an attack on Nolan enjoyers, but was actually shared for the people who also share my opinion on Nolan Batman. It doesn't bother me that you enjoy Christopher Nolan, and it shouldn't bother you that I don't enjoy Christopher Nolan. They're just opinions on film and personal tastes.
No, I'm not an atheist. I'm a Christian. Are you a teenager? Because thinking your movie tastes make you smart or elevated like the rick and morty copypasta is a teenage sort of mindset.
I hate Christopher Nolan movies. My dislike of his films and my assessment of him being a pretentious filmmaker are not limited to the Batman movies.
Inception, what a dull and boring way to make a movie where you can do litereally anything, because you're exploring dreams.
Tenet. Cut it off after 15 minutes on account of not being able to discern a single line of dialogue.
Interstellar....was ok, but when you're ripping off 2001 a Space Odyssey by an actually incredible film maker, you're bound to at least arrive at being decent, which Interstellar is by Nolan standards.
If all he ever made was Memento, he would have been seen, in my opinion as a creative guy with a bright future ahead of him. Interesting concept, interesting execution.
Instead he is associated with the 2010s mumble acting, grey washed out color palates, movies taking itself far too seriously, hyperfocus on plots that aren't even good with very little atmosphere, characters who speak like plot point dispensers rather than actual human beings, and in general films that feel like the movie equivalent of being a Zoloft zombie. His movies look and sound like what depression feels like. There's nothing fun or enjoyable about his movies. I feel like a vampire is sucking out every bit of life from me when I watch his crap.
Now I'll give credit where it's due. I enjoyed all three of his Batman movies in theaters.
I also enjoyed Avatar in theaters and quickly realized it's a piece of crap.
The Nolan Batman movies, over time revealed themselves for what they were, which is painfully of the times 2010 malaise type movies that do not hold up.
Batman 1989 feels as timeless today as ever. Nolan Batman epitomizes they style of film-making and acting that is the reason I have like barely a handful of films I'll watch past the year 2006 or so.
The more time went on, the more the Nolan Batman films became evident that they are Christopher Nolan movies, and as time went on I realized how much I despise Christopher Nolan movies.
Similar thing with Casino Royale. Enjoyed it at the time, but now hate everything to do with Daniel Craig's Bond because of what it represents and the sheen wore off once some time goes by and you can assess it objectively.
The point of comparison of Nolan's Batman and the 60s Batman is the gravity given to a guy wearing a batsuit who fights clowns who commit crimes is way disproportionate.
The 60s Batman for all it's corniness gives an appropriate weight to things, which is that it doesn't give it any weight. That's fine, and Burton's Batman is also fine which gives it some weight, but not the type of weight that Nolan or that one with the guy from Twilight gives it.
To me that is pretentious when you give Superman that level of gravity like Zach Snyder, or Batman that amount of gravity with Christopher Nolan.
Yeah Kiss from a Rose is one of the songs I most associate with my childhood.
When I rewatched Batman Forever for the first time in a long time years ago I was surprised that song wasn't in the movie, except as like the second song after the orchestra in the end credits.
I associated that song so heavily with that movie, they were so tied together in pop culture and in my mind that I figured it showed up SOMEWHERE in the actual movie or at least immediately when the credits play. Was surprised it wasn't more prominent in the actual movie.
Kiss from a Rose is one of the best songs ever made imo
having the quality of camp.
Not like sleeping in the woods camp.
Campy in this context means it's goofy in a tongue in cheek, absurd, funny, and fun sort of way.
It's kind of like cheesy, but not quite the same. I assume you're a younger generation?
Millennial and older know what camp means in terms of media.
It's kind of like the word based. Hard to explain to someone who doesn't already know it, but it's something where you know it when you see it.
Eh...I just can't do it with cartoons. I've tried getting into it after hearing the praise. I don't get the huge hullabaloo about Mark Hammil's Joker. To me he sounds like a cartoon made for kids Joker. Nothing special.
It's not because Mark Hammil's a lefty either. His leftism hasn't ruined Luke Skywalker for me....I just don't see why people crow about his Joker like it's special.
I like him as Joker in Arkham games, but in the cartoon, it's just too cartoony.
I'll watch cartoons that are comedic like Loony Tunes or Futurama, Family Guy, etc, or the occasional classic cartoon like Scooby Doo or something.
But drama/action cartoons I can't get into.
I have the series on my Plex, and I've watched some of it. I like Mr Freeze in the animated series a lot. His voice, characterization and writing is really good.
But in general, there's too much of that WB Kids cartoony-ness that prevents me from getting into it.
There's something about live action where the camp and the cheese works for me because I'm watching real people, whereas something I don't like with animation (dramatic/action animation at least) is every single thing is too intentional. No facial expression is accidental. The artists draw it exactly how they want it. And in most cases the expressions are too overly expressive, having no subtlety. And that's why I can't get into animated acting. Radio is different. Radio you use your imagination and voice acting shines there.
But cartoons take the advantage of voice acting and meticulously detail every facial expression taking away the advantage of imagination, while also not having the benefit of live actors with their imperfections and body language choices.
That would be my best guess as to my rationale as to why I can never get into a cartoon, besides comedic cartoons.
Yeah it's great, I love how everything is meticulously labelled to an absurd degree.
He'll be like "Robin, let's go take a look at the illuminated wireframe overhead map of Gotham city" and they'll walk over and the camera pans to the map and the label on the map thing will say "illuminated wireframe overhead map of Gotham city". The exact wordings to a tee. Hilarious.
Yeah, Razorfist has talked about how whenever he has a video that does well and sort of breaks past that algorithmic suppression, he'll get tons of comments saying they got automatically unsubscribed.
Basically, when new people discover him and subscribe, Youtube's system goes "can't have the likes of him having a growth" so they counterbalance the new subs by unsubscribing current subscribers.
That way his channel basically always stays at that same general size.
I haven't really watched him too much in nearly a year so I don't know if that's still the case with him.
I didn't stop watching because I dislike Razorfist or anything, it's just his personality can be a bit too much and when I listen to too much of him, I gotta take a break haha.
PBS uploaded the video of Kirk's wife eulogy and the thumbnail was her smiling and people, including myself chocked this up to PBS being propogandist scumbags.
I did an experiment and downloaded their video and uploaded it, and these were the AI auto generated picks.
The thing about auto youtube thumbnails is they almost always pick happy faces over sad faces because in general people will click a happy attractive face over a sad face.
As someone who's uploaded videos to Youtube, youtube's auto thumbnails almost always go for moments where smiling happens because it's "good for the algorithim"
Those were the only 3 choices I was given without having to create a custom thumbnail.
Since PBS news uploads like 10 videos a day, and their videos are just news, they go with whatever the auto thumbnail is over custom thumbnails. The majority of their videos are just screenshots from the video itself. On their channel they rarely use a custom thumbnail.