MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
It's problematic to group people based on physical properties.
It can lead to the truth many times - after all, stereotypes are created for a reason - but it doesn't leave room for humanity.
We are all essentially and at our core, HUMAN BEINGS, energy that's called 'souls', we're interconnected through multiple dimensions, and our visitation to ANY physical body, regardless of race, gender, location, etc. is TEMPORARY. Energy is eternal, which means we live forever, while cultivating ourselves to higher entities. The point where we stop being human beings, is the point where we become something greater, not where we suddenly become just a physical body.
Having said all this, it's remarkable, how much the physical body CAN inhibit and dictate our expressions, value systems, thinking ability and other abilities as well. Women have certain biological quirks that allow them to do things men can't (the old chair-experiment, for example - although it's only due to a different point of gravity, so nothing to type home about).
Vice versa, OF COURSE, also applies.
It's amazing how we're supposed to forget we're human beings first, other things second (if at all), and we're supposed to IDENTIFY with race, gender, etc., but at the same time, we're NOT supposed to talk about gender differences, race differences and the like, although it's not insulting, as it's just the temporary body stuff, so why would anyone get offended?
Women have so much sexual and social power over men, but also within the system (almost never put to prison, and even when they are, shorter sentences, and even then, their prisons are much easier for women, and women can't really even R-word each other, the way men get R-worded so much when they are put to those violent hellholes).
Everyone feels sorry for women, because women have 'victim status', sometimes even exceeding children's 'victim status'. Yet, we're supposed to think of them as full adults, although they can act like toddlers..
"Yes, if you knew anything about writing, you would know tone and style are important"
You don't have to -know- anything about writing to write well. All you have to do is express a thought using the english language correctly, with the english grammar. That's all.
Also, there's no TONE in writing, so this is a peculiar thing for you to say. Tone only exists in other forms of communication, not pure text, which is why people misunderstand SO much, as some people like to IMAGINE a tone that just isn't there (because it can't be).
You can INTEND for there to be a tone, but it won't be there for the reader, so you might as well forget this 'tone'-nonsense.
Style is DEFINITELY not important! It doesn't matter what 'style' you draw some beautiful scenery in, as long as it's a honest expression of yourself! The same goes for writing - HOW do you even have a 'style' of writing anyway? Do you use words in a very weird way? Do you seek to encumber your communications by the utilization of verbally excessive strand of interchangeable characterizations?
Even Bruce Lee spoke strongly against styles, because styles limit and inhibit what should be a free and flowing, honest expression. You can't be a good martial artist and express only style.
The same way, you can't write well if you express STYLE instead of your honest self.
No wonder you didn't quite understand the difference between 'power' and 'feelings' in your other post. You said it's all about feelings, but it's not.
It's ALL about power. It's not even about money, as TPTB easily creates and manipulates money any which way they want, and money is an artificial concept anyway, used to enslave people - money is debt that acts as chains, if you want to use a 'style' of expression (Tarot, in this case).
It's all about power and the sub-section of power; CONTROL.
As I mentioned earlier, this entity is very peculiar and absolutely 'anomalous', from the perspective of the system, but also from the perspective of people.
Still, it's not a crime to be an 'anomaly'.
The MOST fishy thing, though, is that all kinds of convicts, criminals, ex-criminals and such still operate in these platforms, completely monetized. I won't point my finger on who, but just to mention someone I can't bring myself to respect except as a created cosmic spark akin to us all, a lost soul who is drowning herself in money and fame and vulgarity, after even admitting to drugging men so she can rob them... no problem for these platforms to keep that entity monetized.
As long as you go with the flow the system has set up for you, spout the right lines and lie in a very specific way, and help the governments and corporatiosn corrupt innocent people in a specific way, you will be monetized.
You can do things to people against and without their consent and rob them, and keep being monetized.
You CAN'T tell the truth about corporations, power structures, things that affect people's lives, or you will be demonetized for something you ALLEGEDLY did 20 years ago!
I mean, if these entities were at least honest and say you are demonetized for speaking the truth about Pfizer, but they won't do that, which already proves something in my opinion.
Of course if they DID do that, all hell would break loose, as then everyone would KNOW we live under an oligarchy of powerful families that worship moloch and throws everyone under the bus that gets in their way, with NO justice or fairness for anyone, if they get out of 'line'..
Then we'd truly and officially live under an oppressive regime - right now we only do that in practical reality, while pretending we live in some kind of 'democracy' where everyone is 'free'.. it's a sad facade, but as long as masses are idiots and corporations and governments are staffed with evil people, we won't be free.
As far as the allegations and accusations, it's VERY easy to allege or accuse. It's super easy, barely an inconvenience.
This means, any allegation or accusation should absolutely be BACKED UP by very good evidence, something solid and valuable in a courtroom situation. Otherwise it's just flabbing your lips or fingers, and means nothing.
There are so many fishy things about all of this. If he did do the R-thing back decades ago, why wasn't he arrested, judged and convicted right then and there? Why didn't these women go to the police RIGHT AWAY? Why did they wait for decades for the 'right moment'? This is extremely fishy.
Why isn't he arrested by the police, taken to be judged by his peers and proven guilty and then taken to jail? Isn't THIS what's supposed to happen to a (even an alleged) criminal, not some 'demonetization'? Trial by media, but the justice system won't touch him? These are SERIOUS allegations, shouldn't every serious allegation be investigated thoroughly and go through the justice system? Why won't police do anything, but governments send letters to corporations so he loses the ability to make money?
Very, very fishy.
I mean, he was a drug addict, and drug addicts and alcoholics are known for 'blackouts', or 'being blackout drunk'. This means, he can't even himself fully KNOW whether he did or didn't do a specific thing 20 years ago or so. This means, something like this is at least possible.
He also admits to having been a 'sex addict', and promiscuous back then, so this combined with drug addiction and possible 'blackouts' does point to possibilities.
As a counterpoint, someone that's in 'blackout drunk' state, can't probably even walk straight or think coherently. This means, they would be extremely easy to avoid or 'counter'.
Then there's the whole 'every study says women are stronger'. How can a weak man force a stronger woman to do anything against their will? Who says the women didn't R-word him? Gender = social construct!
Him calling people 'ordinary' also bugs me - who is he to tell who is 'ordinary' and who isn't? Aren't we all 'extraordinary', considering we're multidimensional cosmic beings created by the greatest force in all existence?
I mean, how can he call people 'wonders' while at the same time, labeling them 'ordinary'? Why 'ORDINARY' of all things?
I realize language sometimes makes us say things we don't exactly mean, because there are established lingo and sometimes a frustrating lack of proper terminology and words, but something just always rubs me the wrong way about him and how he talks about people.
To me, he seems to be a relatively 'young soul' (so to say), that simply went through a lot of drugs that opened his chakras and mind to experiences that are meant to happen and open up much later in one's spiritual life. If your spirituality comes from drugs forcefully expanding your mind, instead your actual old age and due diligence when it comes to understanding reality and doing your spiritual training without such things, trusting the Creator to open and expand your mind when you are ready, one could say there's something a little off.
It's like a prodigy kid can understand things his peers can't, but then he goes to lecture adults about things his child-mind isn't quite ready to grasp or understand implications and larger concepts of, and then people praising the prodigy for telling the truth. Sure, he may be prodigy among kids, but he's not going to outsmart some quantum physicist that has studied and practiced his field for 25 years and has a vast knowledge and experience about it.
That's the kind of feeling I get from him - I commend him on being vegan/vegetarian, but I scold him for wearing skin jacket in one of his videos. It's neither congruent, nor ethical, and a spiritual being doesn't do unethical things.
Drug users are like joggers who take shortcuts and then think they're just as good as the 'second best', who only lost because they didn't.
I have watched many of his videos, and it's remarkable how much he has changed inbetween them. In his older videos, he has very LOW energy, very quiet voice and he looks tired and worn-out, not to mention 'unsure'. He also speaks about very different matters in a very different way, as if trying to throw stuff into the wall and seeing what sticks.
If you watch an old video, where he speaks slower, with lower volume, less energy and so on, trying to explain something that sounds very strange and might not fully make sense, and then watch a newer video, that opens with him basically SHOUTING to the cameras with BIG HAND MOVEMENTS (he must be a Mac user) with high energy and enthusiasm, you have to wonder, did he change his medication or start drinking coffee or what..?
It's almost like a duality in personality.. one is 'mellow', 'meditative', everything you'd expect a 'spiritual guru' to be when it comes to self-expression, the other is just a 'wacky political commentator' that screams and yells with big hand movements, as if we can't hear him unless he puts some kind of crazy energy into his show.
One of these 'personalities' must be a bit 'fake', because they're almost like two completely different people.
To me, he's a bit like a vegan that still eats at MacDonald's, and sees nothing wrong with it. You can't be spiritual and then e-beg your audience for more and more subs, likes, etc. as if nothing is ever enough. Doesn't he have enough money by now? Why not preach something like 'I have enough money now, and money can't bring happiness, so subs, likes, etc. do not matter, only this core truth about life matters - instead of subbing, go walk in some beautiful forest'?
His values seem to align a bit too perfectly with the greed of modern capitalism, that it's sometimes hard to take him seriously, when he preaches the stuff about corporate greed and rich people making billions out of 'ordinary people''s misery.
A lot of his stuff comes off as highly egotistical, and it's almost repulsive at times. He does interview a lot of people from all kinds of places, mindsets and so on, but he doesn't seem to have a coherent worldview. He seems to have advocated drug usage, as long as those drugs are 'psychedelics', although he mentions how he can't take drugs anymore for some reason.
I never quite liked his way of speaking, his voice, mannerisms, or childish humor for the most part, but sometimes he hits the nail in the head and makes me laugh by using humor to point out just how absurd some corporation's message or actions are, or how the government has made really odd decisions that have lead to catastrophies, etc.
I would like to like him, but something always rubs me the wrong way, and I don't quite know what it is. I have noticed his 'conspiracy knowledge' doesn't reach all that deep, it doesn't quite gel with what I know about the world and the Universe, and leans way too much towards believing all the 'official stories', except when he's specifically targeting one that seems shaky.
He doesn't seem to have any qualms about the normalization of standing armies, sending people not to just die in useless wars, but to murder each other. I bet he wouldn't mind respecting a murderer who has drone-striked children or sniped innocent people from a couple of kilometers away (or what the celebrated record was, disgusting!).
So from my point of view, he has many good and many very peculiar and bad points, his 'spirituality', such as it is, seems to stem more from the fact that he did lots of drugs back in the day and then lived in such a destructive turmoil, some kind of counterbalance had to happen eventually.
Whenever I compare what a 'spiritual master' would do, to what he's doing, he comes off more as a bit of a chameleon that right now wears a 'spiritual guise' or even 'dis-guise' on top of what is at the core just a 'political commentator' that does tell people the truth..
"..who believes Russell?"
I don't practice 'believing' - I have no beliefs, I don't believe anything or in anything. Why would anyone, what good would that do?
I have plenty of 'I am sure', lots of 'taking as a possibility until I find out more', 'maybes', 'probablys' (probablies?), I have knowledge, understanding, opinions, viewpoints. I have faith, trust, loyalty, honesty. Why would I need 'belief'/'believing'?
About Russell himself.. he's a very interesting phenomenon, almost an anomaly in the system.
He seems very honest while at the same time appearing slightly 'sneaky' somehow. There has always been something about him that rubs me the wrong way. He has said a lot of 'the right things', and seems to be telling the truth to the system that benefits from keeping that truth hidden. He labels himself a 'spiritual' individual, has admitted honestly having been a drug addict, sex addict and all kinds of crazy and wild things that lead to self-destructive behaviour.
Then he has talked about 'aligning' the destructive thoughts with 'spiritual' thoughts, and then they somehow become 'one'. He explained that this simply means 'destroying your own ego' or something like that, which doesn't sound quite right to me, but OK.
However, he has put enormous effort in growing his youtube channel, e-begging for likes and subscriptions, advertising on his channel and so on. Would a spiritual entity do these things?
He also always HAS to mention how many subscribers he has - it's hard for me to envision some enlightened Zen master doing this. He used to call his subscribers all kinds of fancy names, then he settled on 'awakening wonders' - it's almost funny, how in his last videos (after the accusations), he stopped mentioning the number of subscribers, but can't let go of his 'masterful trope' of 'awakening wonders' (as in he's already awakened, you are not) any more than Ryan George can stop saying 'Easy, barely an inconvenience'.
Isn't it interesting, how the words 'demonize' and 'demonetize' resemble each other quite a lot..
..coincidence?
People have indeed remained in their incarnation through some stupidly crazy stuff you wouldn't think is feasible.
However, my point about him is not that he lives too long, but that he's too strong.
When you are in pain, especially a LOT of pain, you become weak. Ridiculously weak. Your muscles refuse to obey, you start fainting, you get very thirsty, and all kinds of stuff like this happens. With his pain level, I would reckon he should've fainted at least a couple of times just from sheer weakness, if nothing else.
The second thing to note is how much blood he is losing. He wouldn't have the strength to scream and yell and trash around like that, if he was losing that much blood AND he's in that much pain. He might even become delirious, groggy, sleepy or at least faint. Brain needs a lot of blood, and when the blood circulation is disrupted and blood is spilling out of the body, the brain doesn't get enough blood and so on.
No one with wounds like that, bullets inside their body, in great pain, losing that much blood, could scream and trash around that much. He's shown to be 'weak', because he can't stand/walk, etc., but at the same time, he has SO MUCH ENERGY that he can not only shoot a gun multiple times accurately, but also scream and yell obscenities at a cop.
This, in my opinion, makes it way more unrealistic than any of the 'how long would he live'-stuff.
"Yeah, I am seeing it now, I guess I just did not catch it. I still think he should of made more of a pivot toward Penn to make it more obvious. "
You should've used 'HAVE' instead of 'OF', when you wrote 'should of', so I guess you can't really complain about someone else's 'should have'..
Well, the thing about Harvey Keitel...
..he's ALWAYS phenomenal, so it's basically just 'the norm' for him. Hard to think of many actors at his level.
As far as Steve Buscemi is concerned, he probably has the most recognizable face in hollyweird, and he always comes off as someone you want to see more of. He has some kind of weird, magnetic charisma, despite being 'weird-lookin' in a 'general way' as Fargo puts it.
They did get really good actors in this movie, which is probably part of why it's praised so much despite being 'almost nothing to type home about'.
You gave me an idea - instead of stupidly naming people after colors (not that 'Blonde' is a color, though, so they can't even do THAT right), why not name people after dogs?
I mean, Reservoir DOGS, and yet we don't see dogs in the movie.. what's that all about?
If they're thought of as dogs ANYWAY, why not give them dog names? Just don't name anyone 'poodle', and it should be fine. Mr. Bulldog, Mr. Rottweiler, Mr. Pitbull would sound pretty good for this kind of gang, wouldn't it?
There are good and bad points about this movie, in my opinion it lacks substance.
It's almost as if it's solely based on 'gimmicks', like jumping back and forth in time, then there are the boring bits, as in 'training to be a mole', then a lot of blood, violence and weird acting.
The movie could've been salvaged, but the absolutely ridiculous ending ruins the whole thing - basically, you watch a movie, get attached to the characters, think there's going to be an interesting story to unfold, and then.. everyone dies. What did I watch this for, if everyone just dies? It all becomes MEANINGLESS at that point.
Granted, Mr. Pink seems to have escaped at least death, but the ending is just so depressing after you think something good could come out of it.
Also, the torture scene with the ear and all.. what's the point? That's not entertainment, that's just disturbing. Sure, it shows the character is a psycho, but that's not enough justification, and that's just too sadistic.
This whole mess does feel like there's really not much story to it, and everything revolves around a stupid, horrible crime that then expands to multiple murders and a lot of swearing and blood.
The only useful part about this movie is the discussion about tipping, though people have such biased view on it - I wish it could've been discussed with more civilized and neutral way, pointing out things and not getting emotional/angry/heated about it.
I do tip sometimes, but I do it because of actual reasons, not because 'I am expected to'. Thankfully, I don't have to live in a 'tipping culture', but I can't imagine my viewpoint about tipping differing much even if I did, because it's just a ridiculous, stupid practice to move the payment of someone's wages onto the customers, when the employer should take better care of their employees in the first place. PAY THEM WELL so we don't have to tip them, god damnit!
Anyway, it's not a completely bad movie, but it's hard to get much out of it..
I don't think birds have the capacity to understand the concept of tipping, let alone the ability to practice it.
Not to mention how little use for money birds generally have..
"There's just no argument to make where masks aren't 100% more practical"
It's never a good idea to state that something doesn't exist - it might come back to bite you in the buttocks area.
There's definitely an argument to make.
How about 'people running around in masks in broad daylight would garner a LOT of attention' compared to just 'regular businessman-looking people'?
Practical? How are masks ever PRACTICAL? They may be useful in hiding your face, but practical? I think sunglasses are WAY more practical, as they SHIELD YOUR EYES from the sun and any kind of attempt to shine a flashlight in your face (as cops are known to do).
They also cover a part of your face, making you harder to recognize. Instead of masks, these guys could wear fake beards/moustaches or something, with sunglasses, it would be WAY more practical than cumbersome, clumsy masks that make it harder for you to breathe, make your face feel hot, create a lot of unhealthy effects because your exhaled breath can't exit as efficiently (so you end up breathing in exhaled stuff that should've exited your face area), and so on.
So in what way is all this more practical?
It's an unavoidable fact that sunglasses/facial hair-combo is 100% more practical.
Q.E.D.
Your statement is destroyed.
Did Edgar call and arrange this delivery, and how could he arrange the timing so perfectly?
Wouldn't someone notice a man's voice and thumping coming out of a chest they're trying to send to Africa before loading it into the plane or boat?
Why would Edgar BOTHER fighting all those cats, ... I am so tired..
The rain effect looked pretty cool, some of the backgrounds are well drawn, like the river scene with the bridge and Eiffel Tower in the beginning.
Other than that, I just can't see the point of this movie. Why does it exist? What's the point of a story like this? It's way, WAY below 'clichéic trope'. It uses every single trope and still doesn't come close to something worth watching. Everything is almost fully predictable, at least generally speaking. No twists, no surprises, nothing to hold your interest.
No amazing locations, lessons, character growth, no poignancy about the world, society, human nature, or how twisted the idea of a war or a soldier is.
This is not even a good adventure or exploration story - all they're trying to do is walk a short distance back home from some countryside bridge. That's it.
Another random point; why can't Edgar handle his motorbike more gracefully? How can he drive so badly and still get to his destination?
How did he get his SHOES back, when the dogs clearly had them just a few seconds before - not only that, but he was already wearing them the next time we see them/Edgar!
That's some fast ninja action right there!
When Edgar decides to put the cats to sleep, why not just poison them while you are at it? You are trying to kidnap them and .. then what? Drown them? Send them to Timbuktu? Would they even survive such a trip inside a chest? It's a death sentence! So you MIGHT AS WELL POISON THEM!
There's so little else to say about this movie.. almost nothing happens, the villain is more idiotic than any other villain I can think of. He's more incompetent than Von Smallhausen from "'Allo 'Allo"..
Cats being friends with mice, goose, and other PREY animals, although they have to eat something, too..?
Calling a truck a 'magic carpet' just so your ridiculous seduction attempts could be justified?
Cats only talk philosophy in the moonlight instead of doing what cats would normally do, even though this cat is a mother of three kittens.. (yeah, it's a Disney movie, but they lean so heavily on the 'relationship/romance/seduction' stuff, they might as well do the deed at least offscreen or something)
Then there are all the useless filler music numbers and such that go nowhere. Some people think it's good music, my ears did not agree.
The streetwise cat has no reason to stay when the ducks appear, he could just bolt, and leave the ducks to guide them to the city. I guess the power of boners..
In any case, the drunk duck couldn't be more annoying, and of course he's just there to give a reason for the ducks to duck off from the movie, because the story doesn't need them anymore (not that it ever really did).
Showing an alcoholic in a positive light in a movie meant for kids..?
Then there's the racistic scene, holy cow.. I can forgive a lot when it comes to old movies, but seriously, what was that point of THAT?
This is one of those rare movies that simply does not have ANY redeeming qualities. How does an evil villain work 12 years completely faithfully and not scheme at all, but as soon as money is mentioned, he becomes evil?
Why would he buy cigar, champagne and all that stuff and talk about enjoying the 'finer things in life', if he doesn't have the money yet? In other words, he can CLEARLY ALREADY ENJOY the 'finer things in life' with his salary (or simply utilizing the generosity of 'Madam' and pinching a bottle from the basement or whatnot), so why would he even need his evil plan?
What kind of service just backs up a truck on a random street, picks up a chest just because it says 'Timbuktu', and takes it away? Are there postage stamps on it?
Posters here have given excellent, logical answers to this, so respect to them.
Yes, it's probably because droids don't have money, so they can't buy drinks or food or entertainment, since they don't even need entertainment to begin with, so they would just be useless hunks of metal taking space.
There's another factor I never saw anyone talk about here - a droid, being a machine, could capture, take video and audio of anything and everything in the place. They could create long reports instantly to be sent wirelessly to some orbiting ship (not that spaceships should EVER need to orbit a planet, when you think about it).
This means, droids would be VERY potent potential spies, and a bar where rough, possibly wanted outlaw-type people come to relax and have fun would be disrupted by all of this, and lead to very serious consequences.
They would be useless customers, they wouldn't know 'how to have fun', they couldn't organically mix with the.. well, organic customers, and they would be of no use, unless they're specifically used for security and such purposes by the owner.
The only qualm I have about this is that he says 'we don't serve their kind here'. I mean, they're not a 'kind', you can't SERVE them since you have nothing they want from you, and saying 'we' makes no sense.
What he could've said, is something like 'droids and robots are not allowed here' or something. But 'their kind'? Really? THEIR KIND?! As if they're some kind of race of beings, when they're just constructed, soulless devices (sorry, translator and vacuum cleaner robot, but you are), not really any 'their kind'. Why not just say mechanical devices or robots, droids, etc.? Why say 'their kind'? Why mention 'serving', when it's impossible to 'serve' a robot (you can SERVICE one, I am sure, though)?
The attitude is logical, the line isn't.
Just a sidenote I thought of: Why does Leia know about Obi-Wan, but not about Luke, when they are practically NEIGHBOURS and Luke should be way more signifigant to her (being her brother and all, plus, saviour of the whole mov.. Universe)? Why DOES Obi-Wan live not only on the same planet, but practically a few kilometers away from someone they're trying to hide from Vader? Why didn't Vader ever seek out Obi-Wan, but Leia had no problems sending a droid to him? Why.. never mind, it's just too much.