Pawns don't have values, they have marching orders. Get back to writing the next smear piece, nyt content monkeys. We have an election to win.
SJ0
joined 10 months ago
San Francisco California (2024, colorized)
To play devil's advocate here, Lynch mobs arent justice.
The satanic panic in the 1980s and early 1990s was a movement where kids claimed daycare workers were committing atrocities. It led to something like 170 people getting charged with crimes and some of the accused committed suicide. Once the stories hit scrutiny the problems became clear -- the kids said people were killed and eaten who were still alive. They talked about secret tunnels that didn't exist. They talked about secret ultrasonic stealth planes that could land in a neighborhood could land secretly in a neighborhood in the northwest so kids could be kidnapped and sent to Mexico, then be flown back before their parents returned. It was a movement, but it was a false movement.
Historical Lynch mobs are a other example. Black men would be targeted by a mob for having the audacity of touching a pristine white girl (who nonetheless often fully consented and there was nothing illegal going on), and the mob would go string the guy up by the neck. It was a movement too, happened a lot, but it was just the personification of racism, and not justified by principles of justice.
A lot of people mistake moral indignation for righteousness and as a result seem to think that if a lynch mob shows up at your door you automatically deserve its full wrath. Really goes to show humans never change, even if we think we do.
It's been busy but going well. Glad springtime is finally here.
The nature of power is such that it isn't self-sustaining. Many people see something that has been powerful for a long time and particularly neo-marxists think power is the lens through which everything is viewed, but such a lens ignores where power comes from.
When I say "neo-marxist", I'm referring to the ideology that all there is must be power and we must view everything through that lens. Marxism split the world into the working class and the owners, neo-marxism split the world instead into the powerful and the powerless. Neither viewpoint is accurate enough to be a useful model of reality, even if both do touch on truth. By basing your actions on these models then, you're going to be acting wrong because your models predict things incorrectly.
You can get power through raw force, but it never lasts. Examples exist all throughout history. The first imperial dynasty of china was extremely legalistic, the punishment for most crimes was death. The dynasty ended when one of the generals was late for a meeting, and when faced with death anyway chose to take his men and rebel. The Assyrians used brutal repression to become a powerful player in their region, but as a result every other player in the region banded together to take them out because they were too dangerous to be left. The same for the National Socialist Germans -- they used a lot of force, and as a direct result everyone else ganged up on them and tore them to pieces.
Lasting power comes from mutual service. Even dictators who last end up having to live by this playbook. Dictators who last end up building coalitions of people within the nation because to do otherwise will just mean the next person will use slightly more force and become the next one. China as an example was a dictatorship, but the people tolerate it because many people felt the dictatorship was working in the interest of the people (more or less), and did supervise the greatest increase in the middle class in china ever.
All of this applies to the movie industry because people think the movie industry has power solely because it has power, when in reality it had power because it was producing films and TV shows people wanted to see and were willing to pay for. As the neo-marxists have come in and changed the industry into the left-wing equivalent of making those hokey Christian movies nobody likes it has lost much of its power because a screen nobody is watching is meaningless and powerless. Meanwhile, Japan as an example has lots of great media coming out of it because they're making stuff people like first and foremost and then if they have other goals they come with that (and they're great capitalists, using media to sell all kinds of stuff)
People think the problem is diversity, but the real problem is that diversity has become the centerpiece of the western media landscape, when it's a boring centerpiece. Just being a different race or sex or sexuality isn't interesting by itself, and all these new priorities come at the price of making unwatchable tripe.
To give further examples, there was a lot more popular media from black people in the 1990s, and A-list actors like Wil Smith came from those backgrounds. It worked because those black people were telling stories that involved them and were about them, helping audiences learn a bit more about the world around them while being entertained. By contrast, today we have black snow white, black little mermaid, and girlboss Aladdin. It's a meaningless display of token diversity that is disrespectful to the source material as well as to the talent who could be doing something more relevant.
"But who will build the roads?"
Why would I leave it open to response? You've responded to 3 messages saying "enforce monogamy does not mean arranged marriages or anything of the sort" with "so what you're saying is you agree with arranged marriages", which only leaves 2 options -- troll or idiot. And again, being a redditor who thinks every opinion that isn't his is a troll, you're probably being sincere and also really stupid because that's what redditors do.
The west can't make movies anymore, but it just goes to show the destruction of western infrastructure. Increasingly, people are looking to asia (japan, korea, and india in particular) and I'm sure they're going to keep growing until the west remembers that it's the viewers that allow the film industry to exist.
No, you didn't understand it at all. You're either a troll, or you're apocalyptically stupid. Since you're a redditor, I'm guessing the latter.
I wish I could claim it's all original ideas, but it's a synthesis of two ideas I saw, one being about the secular cycles idea from Peter Turchin where elite overproduction is one of the problems, and another video about the french revolution and inflation which was really eye opening. It's not the first time any of this has happened, and it doesn't end well.
"I came to a new server and people there had opinions I didn't understand. lol cool story bro they just be trollin"
No, you're just indoctrinated by bullshit and it's making you say insane and stupid things.
If you think that monogamy means you get to rape your partner, then you probably shouldn't be in any relationship under any system ever because clearly consent is something you have a fuzzy concept of. You can stay in incel town where you belong.
Monogamy is a system of relationships where you and another person agree that while you're in a sexual relationship you won't have sexual relationships with other people. Under such a system, if you have sexual relationships with other people while already in one relationship it's called cheating and it's frowned upon. You can have sexual relationships with other people, but first you need to end the relationship you're in.
The enforcement of monogamy isn't forcing people into being in a relationship. It's the enforcement of monogamy as the general way of having relationships rather than something like polygamy or a sexual free for all. Under monogamy, there's lots of men and women who aren't in relationships for a variety of reasons, and there's nothing at all inherent in monogamy that suggests you must be in a relationship, any more than there being anything inherent in polygamy that suggests you must be in a relationship.
Marriage in the west is a form of enforced monogamy. There is no law saying you can't cheat on your husband or have a side boyfriend or girlfriend, and in fact a surprising number of marriages practice polyamory or other forms of sexual relationships but society expects that if you choose to marry someone then you're going to be faithful to the other person. Under the European nuclear family model, there is no one 'arranged' to do anything -- certainly not by the state. Young men go out and try to meet women, and a woman chooses who she wants to marry, and then they get married. The way that it is enforced is that you'll face social disapproval if you cheat on your husband or wife. If your friends know that you are married, and they see your husband or wife kissing someone who isn't you, they'll come back to you and let you know, and if it gets out that you cheated on your spouse then you could lose social standing including losing friends because they don't respect what you did.
https://youtu.be/5Iby1gVnBXo
Your post contains a potential basic logical fallacy. "A is B, therefore it is also C"
There's a couple old songs that investigate such fallacies and how they can apply to a legal context. "I shot the sheriff" describes a criminal who admits to shooting the sheriff but it was justified, but did not shoot the deputy. Another song, "Hurricane" by Bob Dylan similarly tells the story about a guy who happened to be at a crime scene, and was robbing the register, but did not commit the murders found at the same crime scene. It's a story about an actual black man who claims he faces systemic racism in his prosecution and was seeking justice. The man the second song was about got a second trial and the conviction stood, but in 1985 the conviction was reversed based on the idea that he did not receive a fair trial due to racism.
I don't think that anyone can deny that Weinstein is creep, and we've all heard the recordings, we know that he's a sex pest, but is he a rapist? He can be guilty of many things, including abusing his position as a powerful person in media in a way that is not allowable under labor laws, but the time of his trial, everyone on the face of the Earth had heard the media effectively complaining that he was guilty of any sex crime that they could throw at him. Regardless of the facts of the case, how could you possibly get a fair trial under some circumstances? Him being a sex pest ended up becoming a flashpoint for an entire social movement #metoo that took the entire world by storm shortly after, being the face of social movement like that how exactly are you supposed to get a fair trial?
He did things wrong, again there's no doubting that, but in the same way that the hurricane could not get a fair trial in the racist 1970s America, even if Harvey Weinstein was pure as the driven snow which I am accepting he not, what's your name and face is synonymous with all sexual impropriety committed by any powerful people on earth it's pretty hard to get a fair trial. What else could they have accused him of and just got in a conviction because of course you're going to convict him, hes Harvey Weinstein and everyone knows he's a creep!
Now, am I saying that he definitely didn't do the things that he's accused of? I'm actually not. I don't know, and I certainly didn't sit through all the evidence. What I'm saying is that for justice to be blind in the same way that it needed to let the hurricane go when there was evidence he was being mistreated due to racism, it must also let Harvey Weinstein go if and only if there is evidence that he was being mistreated due to being made the centerpiece of some new global movement.
There have been instances where Reddit detectives went out and thought that they'd solved the case, and in the end ended up convincing a website of millions of people that someone was guilty of some atrocity that they didn't commit. So for the justice system to actually work, it has to be very careful about being fair and balanced even to the people who are guilty of something.
I don't think that my standpoint on this is particularly unreasonable, though it may appear so if one is emotionally charged and wants to get the bad guy.