MovieChat Forums > kuku > Replies
kuku's Replies
'White supremacism' is a doctrine that argues that white race should rule over other races.
I don't support such a thing. I actually oppose it. I think each ethnic group should rule itself, and take responsibility for their own prosperity.
If you're labeling somebody as 'white supremacist' and you pretend the label to be taken seriously, what you're doing is putting words in the mouth of other people, assigning them opinions they haven't said, opinions they have even said the very opposite.
It doesn't make sense that MLK was assassinated by the government. If they wanted to destroy him, the easiest way was to release all the info and recordings they have about his sexual adventures. Easier than killing him, and you don't risk to make a martyr.
Word games?
My mother had to leave school when she was a kid to get a job so she could help to bring food to the table. She kept working and used the night to study when she was a teen to get her grades. The town was extremely poor. And however, there was no robbery, people were poor, but decent. You could walk during the night with no risk. <b>That's the difference</b> between a poor community and a ghetto.
<blockquote>That's just not right. The older generation should be offended by the younger generation... not bored with it.</blockquote>
That sentence is just brilliant. I sums up the problem with the last two decades.
In my case, I don't have any problems to enjoy anything new. Damn, I have completely felt in love with the Anime produced during the last decade. But western culture have become... you're right... boring. Music is boring and repetitive. Modern Hollywood woke movies are like Christian movies, and they have a common feature: they're boring.
<blockquote>Engaging directly with transparent white supremacist trolls is a futile, time wasting exercise.</blockquote>
I see name-calling and insults stated as usual.
And nope, I'm not white supremacist.
Ghettos ≠ poverty.
They're not the same. Ghettos use to be poor. But poor areas are not necessarily ghettos.
Jew ghettos in Israel? Nope, there isn't.
And in the Han China, you have very poor areas, and the countryside can be extremely poor, but there's no 'ghettos' in the sense we use that word in western countries.
<blockquote>You are conflating different situations. America has been a terribly racist society in the history of its existence. The playing field is not level.</blockquote>
That can justify a slower growth. It doesn't justify black communities being permanent shitholes. Asians or Jews had the same problem, but guess what, they managed to move forward.
Not to say blacks never have managed to grow any prosperity. Nowhere in US, nowhere in Africa, nowhere in the fucking planet Earth. Damn, Asians have the most technologically developed countries right now. What does black Africans have? Rape records.
1. Amber Waves (1980)
2. Yellow Submarine (1968)
3. The Yellow Handkerchief (2008)
4. Yellow (2012)
5. GoldenEye (1995)
6. The Cat and the Canary (1939)
7. The Yellow Sea (2010)
8. Lemon Sky (1988)
9. I Am Curious (Yellow) (1967)
<blockquote>He was a disciplined black man that was trying to teach a way of life that would take other black people out of poverty in a horribly racist society</blockquote>
The only way to get out of poverty is meritocracy, discipline, law, collaboration and intelligence.
Waving a victim card to obtain transfers from other ethnic groups doesn't work in the long term. You'll get some money, that's sure, but it will run dry eventually. Black South Africans have discovered that. They were handled a country they didn't built, and it took them only three decades to become another standard African shithole. The same happened in Zimbabwe. The same happened in Detroit. And the same will happen in US.
In Much Ado About Nothing he was brilliant. It deserves to be in the Top 5.
Not likely. Malcolm X was a very toxic figure, if he had been white he would have been probably a neo-nazi. Politically, Hoover would have been interested in having him alive and using him as a representation of black people.
It's the same that happens with Richard Spencer. He was a nobody until he started to make into the headlines in mainstream woke media. It was woke media the ones that made him known, because he was useful.
The 90s had quite a few good movies, but it hasn't such a distinctive personality as the 60s, 70s or 80s. I don't see how nostalgia is gonna work well there.
It has a few creepy ones. The scene in the lighthouse is creepy, though I think it's not the creepiest one.
The movie is about the fear of the dark. Watch better during the night, with the lights off. It's not a great movie, but it's a very enjoyable guilty pleasure.
Two more:
Darkness Falls (2003)
The Fog (1980)
Worst case with Dexter, you can watch seasons 1 to 4. The final episode in season 4 could work perfectly as a series final episode. And the first 4 seasons are excellent.
Paintings, probably.
In modern western mainstream media? A rejection with that level of hate and nastiness? It's either because you're a white male, or because you're anti-woke.
Since Joe Hill is not particularly anti-woke or politically incorrect, the only remaining cause is his skin color.
Yeap. The original novel didn't have any racial connotations. It's was just a story with a lot of sordid people: whites, indians, men, women.
The movie, on the other side, seems to be the usual anti-white stuff.
I read the novel when I was a kid. From what I remember, there was quite a gallery of nasty characters.
For what I've seen in the cast and the trailer, they've white-washed the negative character, particularly the two brothers, very nasty guys, the were half French, one of them being half Indian. In the movie, however, both are 100% white and blond.
And then you have new 'diverse' positive characters, like the black guy or the female Indian.
In a nutshell: this is not politically incorrect. This is just more woke 'white males are evil' propaganda.