My Karma is too low to post in r/movies.

The other problem is my new profile to circumvent my permenant IP ban, is tied to a blog on substack that will be fairly controversial and I don't want to be doxxed. If one of you, and only one could post that movie explosions video to r/movies at exactly 6PM CST today

r/actionmovies at 6:30 PM CST today

and r/masculinity rocks at 7:00 PM CST today, you'd have my gratitude.

Someone who has decent Karma, enough to be able to post, but also doesn't care if they get banned for Reddit assuming it's "self promotion".

Again, I'd do it myself and that was my plan, but after finding out I don't have enough Karma to post in r/movies, and I was already not keen on the idea as my substack name is the same on Reddit, and will be controversial, I thought better of it and was hoping someone would do that for me.

You have my sincerest thanks. I have a lot of unused codes for games and software on humble bundle. In exchange for doing that, I'll send you a list of unused games/software and you name one you want and I'll PM you the code as thanks for doing this for me.

Obviously again, your Karma has to be high enough that you can post to r/movies.

This isn't as big of a thing as it was maybe a year ago or so when this was something people were saying all the time, but there was this thing Redditors and others would call racist that shows like Breaking Bad and movies would have scenes shot in Mexico be orange looking.

That's racist, Mexico isn't orange!

I know I'm preaching to the choir here from the aspect of Redditors seeing racism everywhere, but I just wanted to bring up some points they don't ever bring up, that is many locations use certain coloring to establish their location subconsciously to viewers, that never get called racist for obvious reasons.

If you watch Hard Target with Jean Claude Van Damme, it's got an orangish tint to the daylight scenes....because it's set in New Orleans, aka the South. In fact, most movies that are set in the south have some sort of warmer tint to their coloring because the mind associates warm weather and warm colors. Filming New Orleans with a cool color tint would feel wrong to our brains.

If you watch the original X-Men movie, the scene with the girl nearly killing the guy by kissing him, it's in the south and it's orangish in color grading, but then later when wolverine is in Canada outside, the whole screen is practically blue it's tinted so hard in the blue direction....because blue is cold and Canada is cold.

Where are all the people outraged saying "Canada isn't blue!!!"

And yet, oftentimes when you have a show or movie that spans many places, if they go to somewhere like Canada or Alaska, they'll choose a colder color tint to emphasize the location change.

Same thing with Europe. If it's Italy or Spain, it'll probably have a bit of a orangish bright tint, but if it's Germany, it'll probably be a little bit greyish, slightly desaturated. Seriously, so many movies when they get to some non-mediteranean European city, things get a greyish look.

"GERMANY DOESN'T LOOK GREY, THAT'S RACIST REEE!"

Now does modern film over use color grading? Absolutely! But that's an entirely different argument. If The Thing by John Carpenter were shot today, the white snow would look blue because they think the audience is too stupid to know that Antartica is cold unless it's tinted in a cold way.

I hate the modern overuse of color grading in films, but again, that's an entirely different issue (and as I pointed out with Hard Target, it's not exclusive to modern film....film has always chosen certain color palletes for certain locations and in moderation and with correct artistic application it's fine, it's just that modern films overuse digital color gradings to an unnatural looking degree).

The point is, if the Redditors want to complain about overuse of unnatural color grading as being racist, why didn't they complain that every location on earth gets a "look" applied to it, like the greyish Europe, the warmish south, the cold looking Canada, etc.

Oh right because that breaks the narrative.

So really they should either complain about all the post process coloring assuming audiences are stupid and there's no aspect of it that's racist, or they should complain about none of it.

Sorry just had to rant, because I saw an example of a comment saying that, about one of the Craig bond films shooting Mexico orangish and "Mexico just looks orange didn't you know hur durr", and I had to make this rant.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the whole "Dio is a heavy metal king and synonymous with heavy metal" thing was more of a latter thing, helped by Tenacious D and other metal heads looking back with hindsight.

But I think during the 80s he was just another one of the metal guys, who had some hits, like Holy Diver, Rainbow in the Dark and Heaven and Hell (with Black Sabbath). I don't think Dio would have been thought of as "The personification of metal" anymore than Slayer, Metallica, Judas Priest or Iron Maiden were, and maybe less so than those examples.

And yet if you listen to his music and his vocal style, it's almost like "the most metal-y metal that could ever be metal-ed".

It's so "metal-y" that it almost looks like when fiction tries to portray something real and comes up with something that is a bit over the top and doesn't ring exactly true. He even sings about magic and dragons and all that stuff. Ronnie James Dio, with all his dungeon and dragons type lyrics, is the metal guy a hipster in the 2010s would create as a movie character in a movie set in the 80s as the token "metal guy".

And yet, unless I'm wrong, he was just another one of the metal guys back then, and it's more a modern thing of Dio being this metal royalty and synonymous with it visually and in sound.

I just think it's interesting he wasn't bigger at the time than he was given how much he fits what we think of the traditional 80s style metal, compared to other bands and artists.

I have tons of opinions, and am very good at articulating them. I used to write even for a game review site that was on the professsional side of metacritic for a time, and shortly after I joined, they were laying off, but I was a good enough writer that even though I joined within a month, I got to stay.

It wasn't a big thing. I only got paid in free games. The hope was that the site would grow, but it never went anywhere, but still, I got my review scores on some fairly major games impacting the overall score on metacritic, so it's a nice little notch in my belt.

My opinions would cover the gamut; games, movies, music, culture, Christianity, theology, politics, race.

That's why it will be called something like "too many opinions" because I'm acknowledging that I'm too opinionated. The end goal is something akin to "The greatest page in the Universe" that Maddox had, but not as arrogant because even as a character, it's not compatible with my Christian life.

But creating and hosting your own website requires money, and know how, something I have neither of.

It won't turn a profit because it won't show up in search results. That's why I have to create a blog, gain a potential following and then transition to some format where I can potentially make money.

The question, to finally get to the question is; what blogging type host site is my best shot to gain an audience considering I'll be spanning the spectrum of all types of topics from geeky to philosophical and everything in between.

I asked AI to give me a rundown, but as you know, it just picks what it thinks are the most helpful sites, whereas people can say something like "avoid wordpress; I tried it and got zero views, despite SEO and whatnot"

I don't know if that above statement is true or not, just an example. I would like real experience to know where to begin and not build up a sunken cost fallacy by starting in the wrong place.

It's been a running joke with my mom of her talking about how much she hated growing up watching 70s movies. Basically every 70s movie, it's the most depressing ending possible, and then bam, the TV goes to the star spangled banner and then static, left alone to feel miserable.

Now I don't get depressed with movies so I've always half joked with her about it because I enjoy watching old movies that she couldn't be paid to watch, including depressing ones. And while the 70s is a decade I haven't seen as many movies proportionally to the 80s and 90s, I've seen enough to see ones with that standard 1970s ending where you think things will be ok and then the main character dies or whatever.

See this Family Guy clip for reference: Hilarious clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyGPlo8Rc5E

But let me tell you, I have seen a lot of movies, a lot of horror movies, weird cult movies, and everything in between, and Magic (1978) starring Anthony Hopkins is by far the most depressing movie I ever seen. I actually felt the way my mom describes when it was over, because I was too tired to watch anything else so I was just left with my thoughts.

It's not the ending, if it was the ending, it would be among all the other 70s movies, it's just the concept and how it's done in general. I don't want to say too much, that's why I'm being vague, but watch it and tell me I'm wrong. It's got to be one of the most tragic feeling films I've seen.

If you've seen the movie, let me know if you agree or if I was just being influenced by unknown depressing feelings, because it could be that, but I feel like my sense that this was beyond the normal level of depressing was genuine and not my mood.

So in conclusion the movie is a 10/10. If your Prozac is working too well, it's a good way to bring you back down a bit.

In all seriousness I did enjoy the movie, just wanted to hammer on the main point.

As we know, there was a time when conservative, non-soy filled men felt some sort of kinship with Bill Burr. They felt like he was their working class voice when it came to women, relationships, calling things for what they are, being straight up. He seemed like a guy you'd know at your construction job. A salt of the earth ranter with a good sense of humor.

He was always lame with the white guilt stuff, but that was easy to overlook. It wasn't a huge part of his act. The vast majority of his jokes were about women, which sat really well with people like me in this feminist time.

Then the cracks showed more and more, and his selling out became worse and worse, to the point where all of his core prior audience sees him as a woke sellout. The same guy who would constantly talk about "the government is conspiring to cull people, and wants to reduce the global population" then goes around and shames people who don't get the glorious covid vaccine and calls them conspiracy nutjobs.

Well, not all was lost for Bill Burr, because in the past where MGTOW people held up his rants as their famous megaphone, enter the many leftist Youtube essayists harping praise upon this "new and improved" Bill Burr.

Things we see as pathetically weasely, and shameful, they spin as him "speaking truth to power" as if mocking white people and Conservatives is such a risqué thing to do.

I'd estimate this leftist embrace of Bill Burr as their version of the idealized "common sense leftist" who will speak bluntly the way most on the right speak lasted about.....a year?

I started noticing these leftists on Youtube praising Bill Burr as the "comedian with balls" who "speaks truth to power" about 3-4 months ago, but I'll assume this was something that was happening before I noticed it.

And now, the left is turning on Bill Burr because he's doing a comedy show in Saudi Arabia.....Whoops, turns out leftists don't make for a good audience ole Billy boy.

It took Conservatives years of deaths by a thousand cuts to finally get sick of Bill Burr.

The left throws you out over one "controversy" or event in an instant.

Maybe he might regret alienating the people with money and less of a fragile "loyalty".

The left doesn't like comedy. They watch "comedians" where people applaud their jokes, not laugh at the jokes. Applause is never what you want to hear in a comedy club. You'd rather have an audience that hates your guts but can't help but laugh because you're that dang funny, than an audience who heartily shows how much they approve of you and what you say.

I do this thing where I convert stuff into 3D using AI software and host it in virtual cinemas in VR.

Every year I do the Star Wars trilogy for instance.

I decided, come this december, I'll do a bunch of Christmas stuff.

I'm looking for good forgotten specials, like how in the 70s they'd have that more often.

Stuff that's not cynical, has heart, etc.

So far I know I'm doing Rudolph the red nosed reindeer, It's a Wonderful Life, Home Alone, Andy Griffith Season 1 Christmas episode, Twilight Zone episode "the night of the meek", Scrubs Season 1 Christmas episode.

These streams, I let them go for 2-3 days even while I sleep, so I'm wanting as much recommendations as possible to fill out a long equivalent of a "day of programming" if that's a helpful way to think of it.

Again prefer stuff from the past. You'll notice my most recent choice is from 2001.

I know the 70s had tons and tons of specials that are just forgotten to time now, but can be found on the Internet Archive, so if there's any that you can recommend to me, I'd greatly appreciate it, or TV show Christmas episodes that aren't too cynical.

For instance, I like That 70s Show, but all their Christmas episodes are sort of subversive and anti-Christmas, whereas Scrubs despite all of its irreverent humor, has a really good message in its Christmas episode.

The left killed and are unknowingly celebrating the death of their metaphorical modern day idol.

There is almost nothing the left can agree upon. Almost no one historically that they can like, because as soon as anyone compliments anyone from the past, another leftist or redditor (redundant I know) is bound to point out something “problematic” that they said, believed or did because to their shock the common beliefs of the past thousands of years don’t line up with with their hyper post-modern reprobate Marxism.

There is one sole exception that I’m aware of, the golden poster boy that everyone loves, including leftists. That is Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Rogers, because he treated everyone with kindness, human dignity and was never divisive, represents a sort of resistance-less, toothless general tolerance and acceptance of everything to them. They probably choose not to consider the fact that if Mr. Rogers could see into the 2020s, he’d be disgusted by the left, but the time in which he lived, allows a crystalized idealized version of him to be their hero.

In their imaginations, Mr Rogers would kindly and gently affirm “transgenders” because after all, all that “transgenders” want is to be recognized as legitimate and not be dehumanized, at least that is their claim. Despite the fact that “transgenderism” is not legitimate and feeding it only does harm, there’s also the fact that their goals have been proven to be far more sinister and far-reaching than that stated goal. This is besides the point, because regardless, Mr. Rogers represents who they think the 21st century man should be. Speaking in a way that does not ruffle feathers, doesn’t particularly make waves, generally adheres to “kindness” (as they define it in liberal rooted foundations) above all else, without consideration that a man’s “kindness” towards sin is the least kind thing you can do to someone.

It’s no wonder that this imagined version of who Mr. Rogers would be today the left’s idol because the left has the belief system of demons, but the maturity of children. They would imagine Mr. Rogers tickling their ears when it comes to their horrendous beliefs, while also appealing to their sensibilities as overgrown children.

Now that I’ve established generally why Mr. Rogers is beloved by the left, let’s first do a thought experiment of what would happen if Mr. Rogers were to be magically transported from the 1960s, to the 2020s, equipped with a Twitter account like any celebrity. This thought experiment is key to establishing the point that in killing and celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk, they are unknowingly celebrating the death of who they think their idol is, Mr Rogers.

If Mr Rogers were magically transported to the year 2025, it would not be long before he would be asked, either by reporters, fans, or anyone else, his various political views, such as things like Palestine vs Israel, transgenderism, MAGA.

Now, we know by numerous examples that there is only a single answer Mr Rogers could give to stay beloved by the left. That is a complete and resounding whole hearted agreement with everything the left agrees with.

If Mr Rogers simply said, I don’t like to talk politics and I focus on helping young people with their self esteem, the left would respond, “Silence is making a statement! Staying silent while literal genocide is happening in Gaza is a dogwhistle. You either condemn it or you’re supporting it”

If he tried to with “transgenderism” give the most liberal answer a Christian man could give, by kowtowing to man rather than God and the Bible, they would still hate him if his answer even contained a grain of Bible in it, and they would say he supports a bigoted religion that oppresses “trans” people even if they give him credit for a generally “nice” answer.

I believe Mr. Rogers would still treat people with dignity and humanity and would be kind, but the fact is the only modern day Mr. Rogers the left would adore is one that 100% aligned with all their values and wholeheartedly espoused them. I think we can agree that there is a nearly 0% chance that Mr Rogers would be that way if he were transported decades into the future, even if he was fed plenty of indoctrination on these bizarre ideas.

So finally to the point. The parallels between Charlie Kirk and Mr. Rogers are actually quite numerous.

They both spoke with gentleness, kindness, and dignity to their fellow man. They were both men of faith, although Mr. Rogers was not someone to look up to necessarily as a Christian example. Mr Rogers didn’t believe in “speak[ing] overtly about religion in order to get a message across” and studied other religions including Catholic mysticism, Judaism, Buddhism, and other faiths and cultures” [Source: Wikipedia]. That’s in stark contrast to Charlie Kirk and the word of God which says DO SPEAK, and always proclaim the gospel of Christ and the word of God.

Charlie Kirk’s dignity that he showed to people he talked to is far more admirable than Mr. Rogers. He would have people completely opposed to him and all things he valued and he would tell the crowd who would laugh at the person to quiet down and that the person should be commended for stepping up and doing the difficult thing they’re doing that is being willing to engage in ideas.. He would respond with others’ hatefulness with firm, loving, truth. He had more edge than Mr. Rogers, but he should. Being a Christian isn’t about being soft, it’s about being gentle, peaceful, loving, strong and brave in the Holy Spirit and that power to behave that way is available to all who believe in Christ regardless of any human factors that they possess.

Mr. Rogers' gentle and passive tone is not as inspiring as the left raises it up to be when you consider he was mostly dealing with children who are not at all oppositional or hostile, and he rarely dealt with oppositional adults either. We’re not privy to how he acted when he did come across oppositional adults, but generally he was a beloved celebrity in a time when it was much easier to not be controversial as his time didn’t make stating basic truths enough to be turned into a pariah.

Charlie Kirk did live in this time and exemplified the qualities the left appears to admire in Mr. Rogers, that is compassion and dignity.

Yes Charlie Kirk laid out the boundaries of compassion, and said where you should not have compassion, or how compassion gets twisted. He wasn’t afraid of speaking on controversial issues including race which is the most taboo issue in America. So the comparisons aren’t perfect, but these differences are what make him better than Mr. Rogers, not worse. He had Mr. Rogers general compassion and kindness, while remaining strong and brave in the truth. The latter is what got him killed. But I can’t think of anyone who better reflects the general value the left apparently admires about Mr. Rogers without finding someone who claims to be a Christian or conservative, but compromises with many liberal ideas in order to be more palpable to the people.

In terms of conduct, patience, and gentleness with hostile people you will be hard pressed to find someone who did it better.

I wonder if Mr. Rogers would have been as composed, patient and loving with the extremely hostile college students Charlie Kirk interacted with, and yet they celebrate Mr. Rogers, but killed and celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk.

I’ve compared him throughout this article to Mr. Rogers but the similarities are only half true. I compared him because to the degree there are similarities, it is effective because Mr. Rogers is the left’s ideal man. In reality, Kirk is better compared to Christ. So you don’t misunderstand or think I’m making a blasphemous statement. All men, including Charlie Kirk are sinful and God alone is sinless. But the Bible tells us to be imitators of Christ and few if any public people have been, at least if appearances can be trusted, better imitators of Christ than Charlie Kirk, so it’s no surprise that they suffered the same fate.

When I said they killed their hero because Charlie Kirk is in some ways a modern day Mr. Rogers in his demonstration of love, that was only half true, because what they really love about Mr. Rogers is not compassion, gentleness, peace or patience….if that’s what they valued, they would have valued Charlie Kirk. What they truly value about Mr. Rogers has the appearance of those things but does not lead on truth.

Truth was not his platform, a general liberal sort of kindness to children was and the left have the maturity of children.

As the Bible says if Christ was of the world, the world would have accepted Him. That is why when you have leftists give their version of Jesus, it’s just a guy who accepts everyone and is ok with anything you do. They turn Jesus into Mr. Rogers. But Jesus was the way the truth and the life, and the world hates the truth. The world suppresses the truth in unrighteousness, so death is the only logical response to truth for the world.

This is why Charlie Kirk died and why his death is celebrated.

The founding fathers debated the merits of war over and over until they decided to go to war with England.

It seems un-American to deprive the type of speech that founded this country and conflate it with actual violent speech, examples being "people need to start killing people in the streets". That would be an example and I'd be right there with you. Or saying "someone needs to do a gary plaunche" or whatever that guys name.

Laying the philosophical justifications for why a civil war would be preferable to the continued rotting of this country is the type of thing politicians would debate about; this is not at all the same as someone encouraging vigilantism or any other sort of lunacy.

EDIT: Moderator messaged me back as to why what I said was not prudent, and he made good points and in fact out-philosophized me, noting that the founding fathers wanted to avoid a war and only agreed to it when it was unavoidable. He also pointed out some other things that were worth considering in terms of the wisdom of his rationale so I feel the moderator was completely justified. Being vague because it's his private conversation and all that needs to be noted is that he brought up wise points I didn't consider.

Here's 10 reasons. I could list 10 or 20 more, but I'll keep it to 10.

1. They attempt assassination on our political leaders (Trump shot). WW1 kicked off because the leader archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated

2. They kill people over exercising the first and very most important amendment right, freedom of speech, over speech that is in line with the average American, no less (Charlie Kirk).

3. The media and all institutions including academia and entertainment encourage, celebrate, and promote the death cult that is "progressive" ideology.

4. They are committing genocide in this country via abortion, where millions of babies are murdered.

5. They celebrate white people dying, they erase history, they discourage pride in the country, but encourage people to feel ashamed for things they never even did, they import death bringing drugs from foreign nations, they replace American citizens with foreign invaders, they allow the invasion of the country, they fail to protect their own citizens, they protect criminals over innocents.

6. Corrupt judges who are not held accountable let career criminals off over and over until those criminals eventually kill someone. They do this in the name of a foreign worldview opposed to the American values and Christian values, the worldview of "progressivism".

7. They subvert and teach against our nation's values and lead millions to an ideology of death of which the end result is hell when those fully adopt it and die without repentance

8. They allow the Jihadist ideology known as Islam which has the stated goal of taking over the world to take root in this country, elect them to positions of power, allow them to immigrate here and set up large communities while holding onto all these incompatible beliefs.

9. They ignore the constitution, they ignore God-given rights and in fact deprive these God-given rights when it suits them and seek opportunities to strip the rights away. They'll even manufacture crisis and horrific means to justify their ends, that is the complete erasure of all that is good.

10. They promote communism and many are even openly communist such as the New York Islamic Mayor to be, the ideology responsible for the most amount of deaths in the 20th century and it's not even a close contest. Communism's death count in the short time of its inception counts into the hundreds of millions of deaths. It is a death ideology and it is freely being allowed to be an acceptable position in America, whereas in the 1950s and earlier you would face legal consequences for being a communist.

These were just 10 examples. I think you could easily think of more as well.

If these are not justifications for a war, then I don't know what is.

Can you name me wars with more legitimate reasons?

How many wars have been fought over land, money, or power grabs.

I think the 10 things listed are more justifiable than 99% of war and skirmishes in all of human history.

The 10 things I listed will drag 100 times more people to hell than a decade long war ever could.