On Charlottesville, and Frustrations with Closed-Mindedness

So I didn’t plan on making any sort of blog post like this. I saw some of what happened in Charlottesville, viewing some news bits here and there, sighing at the inevitability of all this, that violence was bound to strike with all these insane protests and demonstrations that have been going on, that fanatics and radicals from all sides are coming out of the woodwork, and were inevitably bound to clash (no thanks to the police and the mayor/governor). I wasn’t going to talk about it. But so many are making so much noise about it on the social media sites I hang out on, that it’s become an unavoidable subject. It’s not something I wanted to get into, but got into it I did.

“The whole thing could’ve been avoided.  What brought this whole thing on was that they were going to remove the statue.  […]  If they didn’t move it, then there wouldn’t have been some Unite The Right march, what the fuck?  But also I have an issue with removing stuff like this because it kinda sanitizes history.  […]  Having them exist is an opportunity for conversation.” — Cory Carr

“As an angry white man, they make me look bad.” — Cory Carr

“I really think that on both the Right and on the Left, our sensibilities and leanings are becoming more authoritarian.” — Forest Taylor

“If people would just sit the fuck down, and talk about things…” — Cory Carr

Continue reading

Nostalgia for the 90s Entertainment Culture, Intro

I was born in the late 80s, raised in the 90s, slowly matured in the 2000s, and I don’t think I could’ve asked for a better decade to be raised in. The Internet started to get going, WWF (before it became WWE) was in its prime, Pokemon hit the nation, Dragon Ball Z was a highlight of my life, Toonami on Cartoon Network with robot Tom was amazing, the birthday parties, the stay-overs, camping trips, and my time in elementary to middle school were the best years of my life. The best friends I ever had, who all eventually went their separate ways, moved to different cities/states, never to be seen or heard from again after all those years. The mistakes I made in the past that ruined relationships I had. Opportunities I missed. The isolation I had, wondering why it is I liked so many things that those around me did not have any interest in.

When remembering the past, it’s important not just to remember the good things, but the bad things. Good, bad, they all shaped me into who I am today. While I have done things that I regret, that regret is what makes me a better person, because the regret reminds me why I should never do those things again. At the same time, it’s important to remember the good things, why I enjoyed them, why they are the best moments in my memories from my youth. For this series, I intend to revisit the entertainment culture from the 90s. The 90s because I was raised in that time period, have a lot of fond memories of great movies, shows, commercials, and other things of that decade which make me believe that it truly was the greatest decade to be a kid in America.

As for the 80s, well, I may try that out after taking on this monumental task sometime down the road. While I don’t have any memories of my years in the 80s, there was plenty of 80s culture that extended into the 90s that was still influential for me, plus I think that may have been the best decade to be an adult from an entertainment culture point of view. I’ll be covering a few things from the late 80s that carried on into the early 90s, mainly tv shows and such.

This is not going to be a short task that can be done in a day. It can’t even be done in a week. Initially I thought I could do it in 10 posts (plus 1 for the late 80s stuff). But after taking a deep look into much that there is, I’ve determined that is impossible. I can’t do that decade justice if I’m going to end up doing 1 post covering each year of the 90s (1 post for 1990, 1 for 1991, etc). There’s too much in each year. And I don’t want to half-ass this like that fucking show by National Geographic “The 90s: The Last Great Decade?”. That show was bullshit. It covered so much of the negative stuff from the 90s that it would make current generations wonder what the fuck was so great about that decade. Well I aim to remedy that and provide something more definitive. But I’m not going to focus on the entire culture, just on 1 main aspect of it and its various subdivisions. The entertainment industry. Films, shows, games, music, toys, clothing (to some extent), and some commercials and other et-cetera stuff. Because when one thinks back on the past, hanging out with friends aside, they think of the fun products around during that time. The stuff that was on tv. The stuff they and their friends talked about and played with. How those products allowed friends to share in the experience and have fun. That’s the stuff most remember.

So to do this decade justice, rather than 1 post covering an entire year, I’m going to do 1 post covering an entire month. 1 post for each month in a year, that adds up to at least 120 posts for this project. Like I said, massive. But it’s possible that there could be a few months where very little happened in any of the above categories, so I could end up combining a few. In any case, I don’t have the willpower to do this on a regular basis. So I’ll be doing a post in this series off and on, until the day I hopefully finish on December 1999.

So if anyone reading has suggestions as to what I should include in all this, mainly with what should be mentioned during the first 12-13 posts (late 80s-December 1990), let me know.

Discussions on Racism

So it begins.  Been getting feedback from my Do the Right Thing review in my entry on letterboxd, and I’m hoping the same thing will happen on the other platforms the review is linked to.  I’m going to post the back-and-forth discussions I’ve been having.  Because I’ve learned from experience that if I end up posting something on a website other than my own that is on a very hot-button topic, there’s a chance enough people will bitch about it to where they can convince the moderators to remove the entire entry, along with the comments and discussions.  This happened once without warning to my The Red Pill review on letterboxd.  This blog entry will be updated so long as the conversation continues.  Because racism is a topic that should be discussed.  So without further ado:

  • i was ready to answer the questions you brought up in the first paragraph because, even though it shouldn’t still need to be taught in this day and age, some people still don’t understand how racism really works. and i want them to learn. so i’m glad to teach. but as i read more of this “review,” it became obvious that you are – despite the fact that you will probably deny it – an ignorant racist.
    so i won’t waste my time trying to teach you because you won’t even spend the time to learn.

Me:

I’m willing to listen. I’m willing to learn. Are you?

Being ignorant means being uneducated, uninformed, unaware, sometimes intentionally so. I’m inviting conversation here, because I would love to see and hear opposing viewpoints from those who themselves are not ignorant, or at the very least don’t believe they are (at the very least not being a troll). Making the assumption that I won’t spend the time to learn arguably makes you the ignorant one. Care to prove me wrong on that?

As for racism, you imply that I don’t know how it really works, or at the very least that my understanding on how it works is misguided. Can’t know how I’m misguided unless it’s pointed out to me. But keep in mind, this can go both ways.

I only enjoy conversations with people who intend to influence my thoughts/beliefs only if they themselves are willing to likewise have their own thoughts/beliefs influenced. I don’t like one-sided conversations. This “review”, it’s every bit as much of a review as it is a strong encouragement for conversation starting. Do I not encourage such in the 3rd to the last paragraph?

  • i mentioned you don’t spend the time to learn because your review just shows that you haven’t learned basic social rules/morals. saying the n word dozens of times doesn’t make it acceptable, it just shows you don’t understand what’s wrong with using it. if you didn’t realize that, you most likely ignored anybody who’s ever said so. that’s why i feel like you don’t genuinely care to change your views

Me:

Ah, and there’s the part you’re missing. It’s not that I haven’t learned basic social rules/morals, it’s that I believe those social rules/morals should be challenged, especially when thinking about the how and why of those social rules doesn’t entirely add up in my opinion. What I’m expecting from an upright socially outstanding strict rule-following high moral individual such as yourself is an argument on why those rules should be followed as opposed to being changed.

Why should saying nigger dozens of times be any less acceptable than saying shit/hell/damn/fuck/bitch/twat/cunt/dick/asshole/pussy dozens of times? If it’s because I’m white, I’d argue that’s racist against whites. See the double standard there? If you’re argument is because all of the above is not acceptable, then I’d say that’s problem with society nowadays, too thin-skinned, which is why there’s so many whiners and not enough people willing to focus on more important issues. Though on the other hand, the small stuff makes up the big stuff.

  • Why should saying nigger dozens of times be any less acceptable than saying shit/hell/damn/fuck/bitch/twat/cunt/dick/asshole/pussy dozens of times?


    Let’s take for example asshole to compare, the eventual issue with such a word is probably the connotations to something which is socially deemed as ”dirty” (and the same can be said for some other words there as well). The n-word on the other hand, has connotations to years of slavery, abuse, discrimination and other kinds of mistreatments of a specific group.

    Don’t you see the difference between something associated by a perceived dirty thing and something associated with the abuse, discrimination and even murder of people (not unlikely, people related to the person taking offence)?

Me:

Let’s take for example asshole to compare, the eventual issue with such a word is probably the connotations to something which is socially deemed as ”dirty” (and the same can be said for some other words there as well).

Some? You’re nicer than I am, I think they’re all dirty.
The n-word on the other hand, has connotations to years of slavery, abuse, discrimination and other kinds of mistreatments of a specific group.

Don’t you see the difference between something associated by a perceived dirty thing and something associated with the abuse, discrimination and even murder of people (not unlikely, people related to the person taking offence)?

Yeah, I do, just as I see “nazi” being thrown around just as much if not more so which has a similar sort of connotation. Or even “communist”. Yet those words are spoken freely on television and in kid books. Granted, they can be said either as an insult in reference to things nazis did under Hitler or what communists did under Stalin, or just talking about the subject of nazis and communists in general from a historical perspective. But that’s my point. Context. It’s all about the context of the usage of the word. If black people can freely say nigger within the context of not referring to those hundreds of years of slavery, than so should whites, especially when we live in a day and age where we don’t have slavery. If it’s to be taken as an insult from whites regardless of context, then I just don’t see that as a path leading towards racial equality, I see it as a path leading towards racial divide that plays into the “white guilt” complex, something that we all need to seriously get over.

  • The difference here is that nazi or communist is words associated with the perpetrators, whereas the n-word is associated with the victims. Or do you claim that nazis have suffered the same unjust treatment as those called the n-word?

    I don’t think the problem with the n-word is that it awakens the thought of the horrible acts associated (as would be the case with the word nazi) but rather that it’s so associated with being aimed at a person in context to the unjust treatment of that person. The difference between whites throwing the word around and black people doing the same is the power-relations, for a black person it would be to reclaim the slur whereas the white person uses it from a more privileged position (that of being free from a history of racial slavery)

    Also, there’s still slavery today.

Me: The difference here is that nazi or communist is words associated with the perpetrators, whereas the n-word is associated with the victims. Or do you claim that nazis have suffered the same unjust treatment as those called the n-word?
Well, they sort of did post-war, but that’s beside the point. But going back to “nigger” being associated with victims, here’s another food for thought. Would it be wrong to call a black person a nigger if they themselves were the slave owners? Fun fact, white crackers bought black slaves from black slave owners in Africa. They didn’t ride out on horseback and round them up themselves, despite what that show Roots may indicate. They bought them from black men in power who also owned slaves.

Also, there’s still slavery today.
There is still slavery today, just not in America. But in Africa… among others.

I don’t think the problem with the n-word is that it awakens the thought of the horrible acts associated (as would be the case with the word nazi)
Fair enough.

but rather that it’s so associated with being aimed at a person in context to the unjust treatment of that person.
And that’s not going to change until it’s used in other contexts, which is done today, by both blacks and (to a lesser extent) whites.

The difference between whites throwing the word around and black people doing the same is the power-relations, for a black person it would be to reclaim the slur whereas the white person uses it from a more privileged position (that of being free from a history of racial slavery)

And here’s the core of many of the dissenting arguments against my view. The power-relations argument. Which I’m assuming you mean in the context of whites having more privileges than blacks, in the present tense. I’ll agree that this is the case in some cities in the country, something that should be rectified. But by and large, on a whole, on an average, I don’t believe that’s the case. I believe that generally, if a black person is in a low-power state, it’s for reasons that have nothing to do with racism, not in relation to racism from external forces outside of the family anyway. Some are in that state because of a reliance on welfare and whatnot. Families with mothers who fuck a lot and have a bunch of babies so they can get welfare.

Personally, where I come from, plenty of black folks have it just as good as me, if not better. They’ve had the same opportunities as me, and took advantage of them, and became more successful than me. So when I see stories of blacks who claim to be victims of racism which is why they are in a supposed bad state of affairs, I take it with a grain of salt. It could be true, and they could be in a low-power poor-financial state due to racism. But if it’s not, they’re niggers. The type of niggers Chris Rock harps on in one of his standup gigs (see link to my website above, there is a video on it that has this standup bit).

  • “Hell, it doesn’t seem to be that big of a deal when a black person calls a white guy a “cracker”. It’s ok for a nigger to call a white guy a cracker, but it’s not ok for a cracker to call a black guy a nigger. Just doesn’t seem fair to me”

    Frankly it’s a wash if you base your argument on anecdotal experiences. It’s less of a formal statement and dialogue but rather casual opinion and conversation. If you were merely speaking about your own experiences in your local circles that’d be fine, but from what I gather, you aim to prescribe large-scale assessments on society and social issues as a whole, which I don’t think can work if you base and draw so much from anecdotal sources.

    “If black people can freely say nigger within the context of not referring to those hundreds of years of slavery, than so should whites”

    This is not equality. Black and white persons have completely different history and relations with the n-word, with black persons of course experiencing it extremely negatively. To suggest that both sides should just drop it/forget about the ideas and impact behind the word and move forward by both using it similarly freely is not fair and not equal. It would be like if a person who paid hundreds of dollars and a person who owed hundreds of dollars were both told that their financial statuses have been erased/ignored and they can now share some kind of service/device dually together.

    “And keep in mind what I consider a nigger to be. As far as I’m concerned, it’s an ignorant dumb as fuck individual, most of the time associated with black people, but can also be associated with whites. Hell, I’d like to see someone call a Native American or a Korean a nigger.”

    The n-word is not some abstract subjective thing you can “consider”. It would be like saying gravity is something I “consider”. It has a solid and concrete definition, history and association. A simple Google search will bring you to define it as “a contemptuous term for a black or dark-skinned person”. Calling someone of light skin the n-word simply does not make sense. Similar to how calling a non South Asian ethnic person a “gook” would make no sense. Honestly I wish I saw this sooner and saved my time. Forget about slavery and America, further discussion can’t be had if your perspective of the word is wrong to begin with.

Me:

Frankly it’s a wash if you base your argument on anecdotal experiences. It’s less of a formal statement and dialogue but rather casual opinion and conversation. If you were merely speaking about your own experiences in your local circles that’d be fine, but from what I gather, you aim to prescribe large-scale assessments on society and social issues as a whole, which I don’t think can work if you base and draw so much from anecdotal sources.

I do aim to prescribe large-scale assessments on society and social issues as a whole. As for anecdotal experiences, fair enough, I’ll bring up something else. See below (response to your final paragraph).
This is not equality. Black and white persons have completely different history and relations with the n-word, with black persons of course experiencing it extremely negatively. To suggest that both sides should just drop it/forget about the ideas and impact behind the word and move forward by both using it similarly freely is not fair and not equal. It would be like if a person who paid hundreds of dollars and a person who owed hundreds of dollars were both told that their financial statuses have been erased/ignored and they can now share some kind of service/device dually together.

That’s nowhere near the same fucking thing! The former (use of nigger) can be resolved strictly based on people’s attitudes and social upbringing with how they’re taught and raised to act towards that word. The latter (making the rich and the poor equals financially) is fucking socialism/communism, and there are plenty of arguments to be made against both. It’s not something resolved by a change of attitude, it’s resolved by giving/taking money from one or more individuals/organizations. This is an attitude issue, not an economic one. Unless you really want to expand the discussion that far, in which case we will be going on tangents.
The n-word is not some abstract subjective thing you can “consider”. It would be like saying gravity is something I “consider”. It has a solid and concrete definition, history and association. A simple Google search will bring you to define it as “a contemptuous term for a black or dark-skinned person”. Calling someone of light skin the n-word simply does not make sense. Similar to how calling a non South Asian ethnic person a “gook” would make no sense. Honestly I wish I saw this sooner and saved my time. Forget about slavery and America, further discussion can’t be had if your perspective of the word is wrong to begin with.

First of all, the google dictionary isn’t always reliable given it’s political reasons for changing the definition of “fascism”.

Second, reliable or not, I pretty much used a similar explanation for the definition within the first paragraph of the review. So don’t treat me like a dumbass who isn’t aware of such things when I’m including the very definition in my own review.

Third and most important, quite frankly, it doesn’t matter how much you claim “nigger” isn’t an abstract subjective thing that can be considered. It doesn’t matter how solid and concrete the definition has been in the past (or in the present, officially-speaking). It doesn’t matter if calling someone who is light-skinned a nigger doesn’t make sense. Because the fact of the matter is black people (I’m not speaking for all of them here, no more than either of us is speaking for every white person) do call light-skinned people niggers. The fact of the matter is that definitions for words do change overtime for any number of reasons (like Google’s definition for fascism, which happened within the last 2 years, for starters). The fact of the matter is that the word “nigger” has been used subjectively by both white and black people (especially the latter) over the last 3 decades.

Whether you decide to continue the discussion or not, there are holes in your argument here.

  • “If it’s because I’m white, I’d argue that’s racist against whites. See the double standard there? If you’re argument is because all of the above is not acceptable, then I’d say that’s problem with society nowadays, too thin-skinned, which is why there’s so many whiners and not enough people willing to focus on more important issues.”

    here’s what you don’t understand:
    racism does not go both ways. racism is not just hating somebody because of their skin color, that’s part of it, but not the worst part. racism is a systemic inequality based on race, and elevates a majority race to a higher social-political level than a minority race. a black person cannot be racist because black people do not have the same social-political power as a white man. i know you don’t believe that, but research will prove me correct. i could explain why that is, but it’d take far too long and there’s more efficient ways to learn (which i’ll get to later). but i will summarize since i don’t want to make my argument seem hollow. this goes back to days of slavery, obviously. after the 13th amendment came about, blacks were still far weaker than whites. Jim Crow came about, and once that was “abolished,” came segregation. white flight (google it) was also a major aspect of racism that came about in the 1900s that will explain how black communities are often more impoverished than white communities.

    “I believe that generally, if a black person is in a low-power state, it’s for reasons that have nothing to do with racism, not in relation to racism from external forces outside of the family anyway. Some are in that state because of a reliance on welfare and whatnot. Families with mothers who fuck a lot and have a bunch of babies so they can get welfare.”

    again, this all goes back to how blacks were discriminated against in early America. “reasons that have nothing to do with racism.” like i said above, racism is not just some white man threatening to kill somebody because they don’t like their skin color. racism is an inequality in opportunities and social-political status. many blacks are on welfare because of the hand America dealt them. i’m going to give a very specific example to make my point. this is not how all blacks on welfare came to be, but certainly how some came to be, and maybe you’ll get a general idea of the bigger picture i’m trying to send.
    Jim Crow laws, in case you’re unaware, were laws that heavily penalized blacks for doing minor issues – such as loitering. for example. Jim Crow laws are still around, to some extent, though not legally. by this, i mean: many blacks have been arrested for smoking weed, not because it is highly illegal, but because it’s an easy method of getting them into jail, which is the exact same ideal of Jim Crow laws. so let’s say a black man, a father, is arrested and sentenced to 6 months in prison. that leaves his wife to be a single mother, which results in her resorting to welfare because she cannot alone support her family. when the father returns from prison, he is unable to get a job because of his jail record, which leaves him unemployed for a while, and the mother still on welfare. i could go more in depth on how that situation could spiral, but that’s the main point of it. this happens very often.

    the other commenters on here made good points that i was planning to make myself.

    above i mentioned there are more efficient ways to learn about what i was discussing, and by that, i urge you to watch two documentaries: 13th and I Am Not Your Negro. i haven’t gone through your films to see if you’ve already seen them, but if you surprisingly have, i’d recommend you watch them again, because you might’ve missed the point. in case you’re unaware, 13th discusses how the 13th amendment and Jim Crow laws are still affecting the lives of blacks today, and goes in depth on why blacks “commit the majority of crimes,” like you mentioned above. I Am Not Your Negro talks about the history of blacks in America and how racism of the early 1900s affects our society today.

     

  • you also keep talking about being “tough skinned.” being “tough skinned” is what led us to have this bully as a president. if being tough skinned means accepting discrimination or bullying, count me the fuck out. blacks have gone over 200 years discriminated against and targeted, lived through slavery and segregation, and your answer to that is to grow tougher skin? hell no. how about the discrimination and hate ends, instead?

Me:

racism does not go both ways.

Oh I can’t wait to see where you’re going with this.
racism is a systemic inequality based on race, and elevates a majority race to a higher social-political level than a minority race. a black person cannot be racist because black people do not have the same social-political power as a white man. i know you don’t believe that, but research will prove me correct. i could explain why that is, but it’d take far too long and there’s more efficient ways to learn (which i’ll get to later). but i will summarize since i don’t want to make my argument seem hollow. this goes back to days of slavery, obviously. after the 13th amendment came about, blacks were still far weaker than whites. Jim Crow came about, and once that was “abolished,” came segregation. white flight (google it) was also a major aspect of racism that came about in the 1900s that will explain how black communities are often more impoverished than white communities.

Everyone knows that. So I’ll answer with this common saying, “What the fuck have you done for me lately?”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What the fuck have we (white people) been doing to black people lately that would justify this dumb fucking white guilt complex? Better yet, what the fuck have black people done lately? Sure there’ been great figures like MLK Jr. and Malcolm X, but that’s well in the past by now. All I’ve seen lately is bitching and moaning and BlackLivesMatter encouraging violence against whites and police. Quite frankly, it almost seems reasonable to bring back racism against black people. Key word being “almost”. I’ve seen a whole lot of sympathy for black people’s supposed plight, not much for the plight of others. You want to talk about age-old victims of racism, why not bring up the Koreans who had their businesses looted and destroyed during the 1992 LA riots? Why not bring up the Chinese who got raped in Nanking by the Japanese? Why not bring up white-Euro slavery in the Middle East?

And I’ll continue with another common saying, “Get over it.”

It’s not healthy to hold old grudges, especially when the current generation not only had nothing to do with it, but would definitely not repeat the sins of their fathers, grandfathers, great grandfathers, etc. So get over the fact that things were bad in the past, realize you’re living in a new time, the present, the golden years, and get the fuck over it. Don’t waste your life searching for those wasted years.

many blacks are on welfare because of the hand America dealt them. i’m going to give a very specific example to make my point. this is not how all blacks on welfare came to be, but certainly how some came to be, and maybe you’ll get a general idea of the bigger picture i’m trying to send.
Jim Crow laws, in case you’re unaware, were laws that heavily penalized blacks for doing minor issues – such as loitering. for example. Jim Crow laws are still around, to some extent, though not legally. by this, i mean: many blacks have been arrested for smoking weed, not because it is highly illegal, but because it’s an easy method of getting them into jail, which is the exact same ideal of Jim Crow laws. so let’s say a black man, a father, is arrested and sentenced to 6 months in prison. that leaves his wife to be a single mother, which results in her resorting to welfare because she cannot alone support her family. when the father returns from prison, he is unable to get a job because of his jail record, which leaves him unemployed for a while, and the mother still on welfare. i could go more in depth on how that situation could spiral, but that’s the main point of it. this happens very often.

Very often. Where? Which state? Which city? Is it widespread statistically? I can just as easily give a counter-example to make an opposing point. Such as the case of white firefighters in New Haven being racially discriminated against. I can do this all day. Try me. You wanna really make a point on all this? Show statistically that these examples of yours are not just small unfortunate instances in small unfortunate towns. I can just as easily make the point that this racial discrimination happens quite often against white people.
the other commenters on here made good points that i was planning to make myself.

And they’ve been addressed.
above i mentioned there are more efficient ways to learn about what i was discussing, and by that, i urge you to watch two documentaries: 13th and I Am Not Your Negro. i haven’t gone through your films to see if you’ve already seen them, but if you surprisingly have, i’d recommend you watch them again, because you might’ve missed the point. in case you’re unaware, 13th discusses how the 13th amendment and Jim Crow laws are still affecting the lives of blacks today, and goes in depth on why blacks “commit the majority of crimes,” like you mentioned above. I Am Not Your Negro talks about the history of blacks in America and how racism of the early 1900s affects our society today.

Well now you have my interest. I’ll see what I can do about watching those. That being said, you should already be aware that I have seen at least 1 film on this sort of subject, Ferguson. I’ve linked to it on your entry for Do the Right Thing. The other I have seen in relation to this subject is Burn Motherfucker, Burn!
you also keep talking about being “tough skinned.” being “tough skinned” is what led us to have this bully as a president. if being tough skinned means accepting discrimination or bullying, count me the fuck out. blacks have gone over 200 years discriminated against and targeted, lived through slavery and segregation, and your answer to that is to grow tougher skin? hell no. how about the discrimination and hate ends, instead?

Do you really want to go there? Do you really want to start bringing the whole anti-Trump bully-racist-sexist-Russian influenced-hack subject and how it relates to the supposed current state of racism? You do not want to go down that road with me buddy boy. You will find a new meaning of pain and humiliation in getting your ass handed to you on a silver platter. I would say bring it on, but that would go off on a big tangent, of which you’ll likely throw a bitch-fit and claim spam and try to get this entire entry taken down like the last cocksucker did with my The Red Pill review. Don’t even think about it. I’m more than prepared for that outcome.

Do us both a favor and keep this discussion away from Trump-bashing. Don’t let your liberal brainwashed colors shine that brightly.

Now, with that out of the way, tough skinned. I don’t think you quite understand what that means and what the benefits are. That doesn’t mean accepting discrimination and bullying, that means shrugging off petty insults, and learning not to take minor things too seriously (although this might not carry much weight from a film critic who bitches about minor petty stuff in films all the time). You know, the kind you hear all the time from elementary school all the way to college. If you want to fight against discrimination and bullying, it’s not tough skin you need. It’s wisdom and muscle.

And lastly, an end to discrimination and hate. At least we can agree on that. We disagree on how to get there. I’ve offered a step towards that solution, making this review make the point of it. And I’m openly challenging anyone who disagrees with me to offer a better way. Why should the word “nigger” be banned from the mouths of the white devil, as opposed to being spoken freely and in lighthearted fun among many who can handle it much as how they can handle any other curse word? All I’m hearing in response currently is, “Oh, the horrid dreaded past.” Fuck the horrid dreaded past. The horrid dreaded past has everything bad in it. The horrid dreaded past has people getting eaten in half by sharks at the beach, yet people still go swimming and making Jaws jokes. The horrid dreaded past has women getting raped by men (or by other women, you don’t hear much about that do you?), much less men getting raped by other men (or by other women, don’t hear much about that either?), yet both sexes have ways of coping and moving on.

I’ve known a couple girls who were victims of rape, who entered into an argument two guys were having about how rape shouldn’t be joked about, especially in front of rape victims, because they are emotionally scarred and can’t take it. One of those girls, came into the conversation at said something along the lines of, “I wouldn’t want to stop people from joking about rape. In fact, I can listen to and laugh at rape jokes all the time. Because it helps me, it stops me from being a victim. It proves that I didn’t let him defeat me. To me it shows that he did not destroy me. That I am alive and still going, and still going strong.”

That, my friend, is tough skin. Not staying as the victim the rest of your life. Licking your wounds, growing stronger, and moving on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If a rape victim can get over a horrible thing of the past, and have a relationship with and get married to a male, then why the fuck can’t black people get over this? Why is it that you and others believe this white guilt of the past thing should carry so much weight?




So I believe it’s worth mentioning at this point that jeremyfizzy wrote a review soon after seeing mine and making his first comment on it.

jeremyfizzy Review by jeremyfizzy

What begins as a relatively lighthearted yet authentic slice of life of an African-American in 20th century Brooklyn, ends in a gut-punching reflection of our society. Because, as well all know (or should know), the life of an African-American in America is not at all lighthearted.
The film bursts with energy that brings to mind Scorsese’s Mean Streets and utilizes it to drive forward a hard-hitting look at the deeply ingrained culture clash of urban America. Inevitably provocative and frustrating to the intolerant and close-minded while simultaneously educating and empowering to the open-minded and oppressed.
The most amazing aspect of this film is not what it says, but instead what it evokes its audience to say.

To which I responded and get in this brief exchange:

Me:

Because, as well all know (or should know), the life of an African-American in America is not at all lighthearted.

Ah, I see what the deal is now. Perhaps this will give a little more insight into my line of thinking:
letterboxd.com/gex/film/ferguson-a-report-from-occupied-territory/

 

  • i don’t think any BLM argument is valid when discussing this movie. the other way around, yes, but not here, since this movie came out almost 30 years ago, whereas BLM is recent. the hardships of blacks in America is systemic and goes further than the aspects you covered in that review.

Me:

Of course the the BLM argument isn’t valid when discussing this movie, that’s not the point I was making with that link. The point I was making is that I’m not an ignorant fucking racist. I’d expect you to treat me accordingly if you choose to comment on my Do the Right Thing movie post again.

  • you cancelled out the chance of me thinking you weren’t ignorant or racist when you threw around the n word in hopes of desensitizing it.

Me:

Then I guess you can blame a man for trying.




9:45pm, 7-10-2017

  • Arg. #2: It was merely an analogy. Maybe not the best one, I concede, but nonetheless the rest of my statement remains without response.

    Arg. #3: Again pointing out small things. I used Google merely to demonstrate the widespread and simple definition of the n-word. You cannot seriously doubt that Google’s definition is how most people would define the n-word. At the very least, you cannot also seriously doubt that most people would choose Google’s definition over yours (“ignorant dumb as fuck individual”).

    “Because the fact of the matter is black people do call light-skinned people niggers.” – This seems to be the thesis of this paragraph yet again I can’t do anything about / work with it since again it’s based on anecdotal experience. I have never heard black persons call white persons the n-word, nor have I heard of such an instance occurring in my area/circles. It’s probably because, again, it doesn’t make any sense. So on that front, I’ll withdraw as neutral.

    “The fact of the matter is that definitions for words do change overtime for any number of reasons” … “The fact of the matter is that the word “nigger” has been used subjectively by both white and black people (especially the latter) over the last 3 decades.”

    Okay I think I see the disconnect here, you’re mixing up the words and meanings of “definition”, “connotation”, and “subjective”. There is only one definition of the n-word as I previously stated and it is not subjective. Further, I highly doubt that this definition has changed significantly since its inception/popularization hundreds (?) of years ago (feel free to correct me on that). What has and continues to change about the term though, as you (rightfully) said, is its CONNOTATIONS – “an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning”. Again, if we can’t agree on the definition and connotations of the n-word (and the difference between the two), further discussion can’t be had.

    (P.S. I don’t mean to imply you’re a “dumbass” with my writing, as you probably know digital communication can be misleading)

Me:

@G
Arg. #2: It was merely an analogy. Maybe not the best one, I concede, but nonetheless the rest of my statement remains without response.

What, this part that was based on some ideas of your analogy?:

“To suggest that both sides should just drop it/forget about the ideas and impact behind the word and move forward by both using it similarly freely is not fair and not equal. It would be like if a person who paid hundreds of dollars and a person who owed hundreds of dollars were both told that their financial statuses have been erased/ignored and they can now share some kind of service/device dually together.”

Didn’t consider the passive-aggressive nature of my response, such as when I said, “can be resolved strictly based on people’s attitudes and social upbringing with how they’re taught and raised to act towards that word.”? The idea that it’s all about an individual’s attitude? It applies there. To make the point blunt, I’ve seen a white guy and a black guy together, both saying to each other, “My nigga!” and laughing with each others. Because their attitude is that this dreaded n-word isn’t to be taken seriously. And they’re perfectly fine with it. Wanna know what that demonstrates? Peace! Equality! Patty problem solved!
Arg. #3: Again pointing out small things. I used Google merely to demonstrate the widespread and simple definition of the n-word. You cannot seriously doubt that Google’s definition is how most people would define the n-word. At the very least, you cannot also seriously doubt that most people would choose Google’s definition over yours (“ignorant dumb as fuck individual”).

I don’t know about that. Chris Rock tends to think otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This seems to be the thesis of this paragraph yet again I can’t do anything about / work with it since again it’s based on anecdotal experience. I have never heard black persons call white persons the n-word, nor have I heard of such an instance occurring in my area/circles. It’s probably because, again, it doesn’t make any sense. So on that front, I’ll withdraw as neutral.
One of these days you’re going to see an old 80s or 90s film which displays that scenario.
Okay I think I see the disconnect here, you’re mixing up the words and meanings of “definition”, “connotation”, and “subjective”. There is only one definition of the n-word as I previously stated and it is not subjective.
Yeah, like how alcohol was defined as an illegal substance. Like how marijuana is an illegal drug worse than alcohol. Like how gay meant happy. Definitions change. Things change. Why not encourage them to change for the better?

 

“A word, any word, is not going to make or break a racist. Context is everything.”Deistman
Further, I highly doubt that this definition has changed significantly since its inception/popularization hundreds (?) of years ago (feel free to correct me on that).

Hundreds? Oh goodie, I’ve got something to work with.
A neutral noun in the 17th century, nigger had, by 1830, become an “influential” insult.

Quote from the book:
“I found myself sharing a hotel room with a white youngster from Mobile, Alabama. Late one evening, right as we were about to shut off the lights and go to sleep, this guy decided to tell me a final joke, one in which a reference to a ‘nigger’ constituted the punch line. As soon as that line escaped his lips, his eyes bulged while the rest of his face froze. He knew immediately that he had made himself vulnerable to a judgement that he deeply feared. Why had he done so? I suspect that he had become so comfortable with me that he ceased to see me in terms of race. Or perhaps he had merely granted me the status of an honorary white. Either way, the reference to ‘nigger’ seems to have suddenly made him aware anew of my blackness and thus the need to treat me differently than other acquaintances. I said nothing during the awkward silence that enveloped the room as his voice trailed away from the failed joke.
He apologized.
I do not recall whether or not I actually felt offended, but I do remember that from that moment on, the ease that had marked our budding relationship vanished.”

There you go.

Ah, gotcha! You didn’t think I was going to make it that easy for ya didja? Oh no, I’ve got a good one:

” On this date in 1997, The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)called for a formal dictionary revision of the word “nigger.”

The NAACP publicly requested Merriam-Webster to revise its dictionary definition of the word. The Merriam-Webster dictionary’s 9th and 10th editions (as well as online) define the word as “a black person… usually taken to be offensive.” NAACP President Kweisi Mfume said that definition “doesn’t say, Once used to describe a black person, a slur.’ It says, A black person.”

He said, “The NAACP finds it objectionable that the Merriam-Webster would use black people as a definition for a racist term.”

The Merriam-Webster dictionary now defines “nigger” this way, in part, as “a black person, usually offensive. . . . a member of any dark-skinned race; a member of a socially disadvantaged class of persons. It now ranks as perhaps the most offensive and inflammatory racial slur in English.” “Associated Press, October 17, 1997.

Of course it’s not a “significant” change, but still.
What has and continues to change about the term though, as you (rightfully) said, is its CONNOTATIONS – “an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning”. Again, if we can’t agree on the definition and connotations of the n-word (and the difference between the two), further discussion can’t be had.

Oh I know. I just wanted a good excuse to throw the Associated Press link at ya. Either way, definition, connotation, it still shouldn’t be taken so seriously, and I hope society eventually evolves into that and becomes all the better for it.
(P.S. I don’t mean to imply you’re a “dumbass” with my writing, as you probably know digital communication can be misleading)

You son of a bitch. How dare you not insult me!




July 11, 2017, 10:17am

The day will not come, in my lifetime at least, that the n-word will be taken “not seriously” amongst the general population. And in my opinion that only makes sense due to all of its entails. So do I agree on all of your thoughts about changing attitudes, upbringings, etc.? Of course, what decent and sensible person wouldn’t. But in reality it’s utopian fantasy, I can’t imagine how to even attempt to bring about such reform in something with so much baggage on a societal level (and probably beyond considering globalization and American dominance in popular media). But hey, good on you, keep right on, and go ahead in trying to do. Fight the good fight, ain’t that right?

(P.S. I’m probably done discussing here but good talk, props for remaining civil)

Me:

@G
Do the Right Thing.

As for how to go about doing it, you’re not going to like my idea, so I won’t say it, because that would take us on a big tangent you probably couldn’t resist getting involved in, unless the thought of it ends up angering you so much that you’ve had it up to here with me and are done.

Nice try with the bait. Too bad for you I never fall hook, line, & sinker. If your idea was any good you would have just said it. 😉

Me:

@G
Nice try with the bait. Too bad for you I never fall hook, line, & sinker. If your idea was any good you would have just said it. 😉

Ok, you asked for it. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

The way to forge a path towards not taking the word “nigger” so seriously can be done by not overcompensating the preach-factor in regards to its hurtful insulting nature. To let things play out naturally. In order to do that, there needs to be some reform in an important area of many people’s lives. The mainstream media, which includes the news, tv shows, and movies.

Enough of the biased news stories and how the cover murder and crime at a slanted angle which involves racism in the sense of pandering to and promoting white guilt. Enough with putting down the conservative angle (especially by you Disney ABC). Enough with the false implied statistics. Too many media outlets push forth this idea, which wouldn’t be so bad if they didn’t skew the reality of events to the extent that they do.

The other area that needs reform is the schools, which should be no secret now that many of them are liberally run and tend to crack down (unofficially) on conservative views, even though all views should have a fair say.

Those two main areas are responsible for causing racial divide and thus enforcing the taboo-stance of the word “nigger”. One could argue its the parents passing down such teachings to the children, but the youth are more influenced by the culture rather than by the parents. The parents are a big influence, but not the only influence. And the odds of changing the minds of the adults are less great than changing the minds of a youth who is soaking in all information freely, assuming he/she wasn’t taught to by into biases too early on.

Anyway, I think you know now why I didn’t say it. It’s a conversation that belongs in a different thread, in a different film entry.

Granted, the paragraph regarding the slavery today is more of a side-thing and not really relevant for the main-argument, so I don’t think it’s necessary to discuss it.

There’s obviously a lot of words with multiple definitions, but this one – unlike many others – have one very clearly racist tone and reference which makes it offensive in some regards. So when saying that everybody should claim it, it could be that people keep claiming it as a racist remark and thus continues to hammer in the oppressive message of the word. Because let’s be clear here, there’s obviously a lot of other words without the same connotations that could be used – so there’s really not a reason for you or me to reclaim the n-word when we could just as well use a word without any such connotations.

I’m not entirely sure what you’re referring to with ”both ways” here? Granted, in the context of intersectionality, obviously oppression could go in several ways but that’s not exactly what we’re discussing here. We’re talking about words rooted in centuries of racial discrimination, institutionalized racism and rooting back to slavery. If that’s something you’d say goes both ways in terms of the relationship being reversed – I’m very interested in what kinds of systematic racism against white people you see in the areas we’re discussing or how the historically rooted racial discrimination against white people looks like.

Me:

@Xplodera
There’s obviously a lot of words with multiple definitions, but this one – unlike many others – have one very clearly racist tone and reference which makes it offensive in some regards.

Now that’s not true. Gook is racist too. Haven’t ever seen it used in a positive way like nigger. Never seen anyone be called a cool gook, although I think that would be kinda awesome. Plenty of other words have one clearly racist tone that are more racist than nigger simply because, unlike nigger, they’ve never been used in a positive way. Sometimes you’ll hear “My nigga!”, but you never hear, “My gook!”.

So when saying that everybody should claim it, it could be that people keep claiming it as a racist remark and thus continues to hammer in the oppressive message of the word.

Or, more accurately, they are told to keep believing it should only be claimed as a racist remark and should only be viewed as oppressive and nothing else.

Because let’s be clear here, there’s obviously a lot of other words without the same connotations that could be used

Doesn’t that contradict your first sentence?

– so there’s really not a reason for you or me to reclaim the n-word when we could just as well use a word without any such connotations.

Like “nerd”? Like “queer”? Both used for similar oppressive contexts in the past, but now those who were oppressed by it now own it, and not only own it, think it’s cool.

“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Gotta learn to not get hurt by the word, especially if it’s not intended to hurt in the context it is used.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There’s punishing people for saying something with the intent to harm, in which case any word they say can be considered oppressive because it’s meant to be. But punishing those who say a word without intent to harm, treating it out of context, that’s politically correct bullshit. It’s just a way of promoting fascism under the guise of promoting tolerance and manners.

 




 

July 12, 2017

 

  • What the fuck have we (white people) been doing to black people lately that would justify this dumb fucking white guilt complex?

    do you have a Twitter account? situations that would answer this question are trending literally almost every day, unless you choose to ignore them. racial profiling is still very common today. just about two weeks ago, a group of black young adults were handcuffed for selling water publicly (www.vibe.com/2017/06/undercover-cops-handcuffed-black-teens-for-selling-water-on-national-mall/ ). if you think that happened for any other reason than the fact that they’re black, then you must be trying to be ignorant. this happens very often.
    how about the incessant cops killing unarmed, innocent blacks? i won’t even give you a source for this because it happens too often for me to need to prove my point. you know that. there was a massive surge in these murders that occurred this time last year that you can’t forget. (but i will link this source, which is the most recent of this situation i’ve heard of, and it’s even more mind-boggling than the average cop-killing: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4636036/Off-duty-black-St-Louis-cop-mistakenly-shot-white-cop.html ) what’s more significant is the fact these cops are rarely ever charged for their acts. Eric Garner’s murderer is free, because he is a cop. Philandro Castile’s murderer is free, because he is a cop. do i need to go on? it’s nepotism fueled by whites. this is why we’re upset that there is nearly no people of color in the GOP. i say “nearly,” because i didn’t fact check, so i could be wrong, but the only black that i know of in the GOP is Ben Carson, but he’s such an idiot it almost doesn’t even matter.
    how about the jail sentences for blacks being so much longer than those of whites, for the same crime (www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/opinion/sunday/unequal-sentences-for-blacks-and-whites.html )?

    it’s not necessarily what you, personally have or haven’t done, it’s what the whites in power have or haven’t done. that’s what the protests are for.

     

 

Me:

@jeremyfizzy
Oh I’ve been waiting for a response like this. Welcome back to the discussion. I thought you were out.

do you have a Twitter account? situations that would answer this question are trending literally almost every day, unless you choose to ignore them.

I have a twitter account, but I don’t use it regularly. And I find most trends to be stupid so I do usually just ignore them, whether they’re of a racist subject or something else. But twitter isn’t the only source for stuff like this.
racial profiling is still very common today. just about two weeks ago, a group of black young adults were handcuffed for selling water publicly (www.vibe.com/2017/06/undercover-cops-handcuffed-black-teens-for-selling-water-on-national-mall/ ). if you think that happened for any other reason than the fact that they’re black, then you must be trying to be ignorant. this happens very often.

I agree that this was petty and likely driven by racism (or at the very least racial profiling). That this was wrong. As for happens very often, what is “often” in this sense? How low would it have to be to not be considered to be happening often anymore? 0% isn’t realistic, because no race gets that sort of treatment.
how about the incessant cops killing unarmed, innocent blacks? i won’t even give you a source for this because it happens too often for me to need to prove my point. you know that.

First of all, how do you know they’re innocent? Second of all, how about the incessant cops killing unarmed (maybe innocent) whites?

 

 

 

 

 

If cops killing blacks happens often, then that’s also the case for whites. The difference is that the liberal news media has an agenda they like to push, and only highlight specific stories to fit their narrative. Stories of blacks getting killed by police tends to be the highlight on the news far more often than stories of whites getting killed by police, even though both happen, and probably more-so to the whites.
there was a massive surge in these murders that occurred this time last year that you can’t forget.

Okay, I’m assuming you’re talking about all those deaths that lead to the rise of #blacklivesmatter, and calling out cops for their racist discrimination and hate-crimes justified by wearing a badge, blah blah blah. Here’s the thing, most of that turned out to be bullshit, and #blacklivesmatter is built on lies.

 

 

 

See what I mean about twitter trends being stupid?
(but i will link this source, which is the most recent of this situation i’ve heard of, and it’s even more mind-boggling than the average cop-killing: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4636036/Off-duty-black-St-Louis-cop-mistakenlyshot-white-cop.html )

That white cop is a dumb fuck.
what’s more significant is the fact these cops are rarely ever charged for their acts. Eric Garner’s murderer is free, because he is a cop. Philandro Castile’s murderer is free, because he is a cop. do i need to go on?

I agree, cops are rarely charged for their crimes. That is a problem. But…
it’s nepotism fueled by whites.

Bullshit. This isn’t some racist problem, it’s a power problem, it’s a police problem, it’s a justice problem. Sometimes it’s racially motivated, but you’re thinking too small if you think that’s the big issue when it comes to the police force. Look at Serpico, Look at The Glass Shield. Or hell, even that tv show The Wire. A police force can be just as bad as the mob, a corrupt family who mainly looks out for each other, and punishes “traitors” severely. Granted, not all of them are that bad (it depends on how large they are and what city/country they are in), but for those who are, racism tends to be a minor issue, at best, in most circumstances. They protect themselves and each other, and know judges who will keep it that way. It’s difficult to fight against a cop (legally speaking, lawsuits and such), whether you’re black or white.
this is why we’re upset that there is nearly no people of color in the GOP. i say “nearly,” because i didn’t fact check, so i could be wrong, but the only black that i know of in the GOP is Ben Carson, but he’s such an idiot it almost doesn’t even matter.

Can’t we agree that, black or white, just about all politicians suck? I’d rather not go too far into that, but here’s another question. What percentage of blacks make up the U.S. population? How many people on average decide they want a political career as opposed to ANY other kind of career?
how about the jail sentences for blacks being so much longer than those of whites, for the same crime (www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/opinion/sunday/unequal-sentences-for-blacks-and-whites.html )?

Ah yeah, that. The article isn’t exactly detailed enough, such as mentioning whether or not these are repeated offenders, which would give a reasonable explanation as to why the sentencings are longer, which would also make sense considering how often blacks get arrested for crimes (see link I made above for more on that). And I do still need to watch 13th. But assuming that’s true, that a black man does commit the exact same crime as a white man (ignoring any pretense of repeated offender), there’s another question worth asking. Why do blacks statistically cause more crime than whites (again, link to pragerU vid above)?
it’s not necessarily what you, personally have or haven’t done, it’s what the whites in power have or haven’t done. that’s what the protests are for.

Or they’re just bitching and moaning because they bought into lies.

Just to have a second PragerU vid for support:

 

 

 

One second to the last thing:

 

 

 

 

 

And for the fuck of it, since you brought it up earlier, something related to a particular subject:

Be wary of what you hear about racism. It’s not always true.

 

On Pedophilia, Lolicons, and Child Marriage

Introduction

That title probably got your attention didn’t it? Don’t worry, this isn’t click-bait, mostly. I’m going to discuss these topics with seriousness, and a tad bit of lightheartedness and immaturity every now and then. Because let’s face it, considering the age-factor, some immaturity is to be had one way or another. This article is mainly a discussion on the age-of-consent, and some proxy-scenarios that spawn around that subject.

And some of you are thinking, “Ok, how are you going to bash on pedophiles? How are you going to bash on people who want to screw kids and outlaw under-aged sex in general?” To which I reply, “Oh, I’m going to do more than just that, I’m going to express why I believe lolicons and underaged sex shouldn’t be as illegal as it is now.”

“Come again?” you may say.

You read me right, I’m here to argue against various (not all) laws that outlaw underaged sex, as well as argue against the general attitudes of society that treats this as such a taboo subject. They treat it as such even to the point where it shouldn’t even be discussed. Bad move. Everything should be discussed, even if that involves the discussion leading to the same conclusion that had been reached in the past, that things should stay the same as they are now because they are as they are for good reason. Currently, I don’t believe things should stay the same, and if you’re willing to read me out on this one, you might just agree with me.

Before continuing, there is one thing to keep in mind. I have a golden rule which I believe everyone to some extent either agrees with, or should agree with. The Christian Bible interprets this as “Do unto others as you would do to yourselves,” or “Love thy neighbor as you would love yourself.” In other words, if you expect to be treated well by others, you should also treat them well. Be nice to others. Don’t do them any harm. There are some situations which could muddle that idea a bit when getting into nitty gritty details, but the long and short of it is that if an individual isn’t causing anyone any harm, they should be left alone.

A few things pushed me into discussing this subject. From a few news headlines regarding teachers having sex with students getting put behind bars, to an email I got from Minds.com (a new social media site that aims to compete with and be superior to Facebook and its asshole-ish Big Brother policies) which stated this:

Drew Devaul
A hypocritical site, I was an investor and now I’m not, I was banned on Minds. So I ask, how is it that You claim to protect Free Speech yet “Lolicon” which is in fact legal is banned even if You aren’t posting any harmful content? You’ve essentially banned Me for a thought crime.

It’s legal under the US Code of Law, where it’s stated that if the content is distinguishable from real children then it’s legal. This includes cartoons.

Bill Ottman CEO; founder
Lolicon is certainly not clearly legal.

Drew is someone who put an investment into Minds.com, as I have, but they blocked his account because he was posting up Lolicon stuff, which could be either Japanese hentai films or games for all I know. I’ll get back to the current legal state of lolicons and hentai in a while, but it’s worth pointing out that the off-limits nature of such subject matter even reaches into this site which is all about free expression and open-discussion that would otherwise not be allowed on sites like Facebook, mainly because of their far-left bias. But it doesn’t matter if you’re far-left, far-right, or down the middle, the reaction would be the same. And it shouldn’t be, for a number of reasons, the main one being the intention and context of such material, in that it was never intended to harm real-life individuals of the same age range the animations depict.

Continue reading

Why I’m cancelling Netflix because of Bill Nye

You fuckers. You cunts. You cocksuckers. I was willing to tolerate the switch from the 5 star rating system to the thumbs up/down system (likely) due to the poor ratings of the Amy Schumer Special. I was willing to put up with a lot of the shitty movies on your network for the sake of finding some diamonds in the rough, and for some decent shows/series. I was willing to put up with a lot, but I won’t put up with this. They have censored an episode of the old 90s show Bill Nye the Science Guy.

Update 7/9/2017: yep, and there goes one video. But where one falls, another rises:

Why would they do this? Simple but stupid. Bill Nye has recently gone on this radical-left PC pandering to LGBQT binge with some of his latest stuff, which contradicts what he’s said in the old 90s show. Rather than just say something like, “I was wrong then but I’m right now,” or ignoring criticism, somehow someway, Netflix has taken it upon themselves to censor a bit from an old episode which states how there are XX and XY chromosomes that makes 2 genders, male and female, in the vain hope that people will forget that he has ever said this, contradicting his current stance. Fuck him, and fuck Netflix. I’m cancelling the subscription. I don’t care what anyone’s stance is on the whole gender fluidity issue, censorship like this should never be tolerated under any circumstance.

PS: Wanna bet that this youtube video I’ve embedded above is going to be taken down within a week? Hell, let’s raise the stakes, wanna bet it will be taken down within 2 days?

March 1, 2017 Site Announcement

I’m going to keep this short. I’ve gained full-time employment, and am currently working a full-time and part-time job. Both jobs are sapping too much energy from me to maintain watching films and making blog posts about them at the rate I’ve been doing. I have a few drafts pre-made in case this situation would arise; but long story short, expect large gaps between my posts. I’m going to have less time and a lot less energy working on them. It’s a pity, as I had something great in mind for reviewing Spike Lee’s Do The Right Thing, but I’m going to have to put that off. Money is money, and I’ve gotta earn it somehow.


Link

“Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Trump vs. Truth” 2-12-2017 critique

Mr. British Left “Because Time Warner Pays the Bills” Winger is back. And as spiteful of Trump as ever. Time to critique. And don’t worry, I don’t plan on making a weekly thing of this. I’m planning on making stuff like this just a once in a blue moon deal, because politics is stressful and anyone talking about it will make anyone listening to it stressed out. That and I don’t want to give his youtube vids too many views, so I’ll just stick with 1 video.

Now to be fair, he does bring up good points. How Trump continually exaggerates things and makes up some bullshit to make him seem grander than he really is. His narcissism is greater than most, if not all, presidents from the past. I’ll agree with that. But the disagreements begin 45 seconds into the video.

0:45

“He said the election was marred by mass voter fraud with no real proof of that.”

No evidence of voter fraud. John, I expected better from you, considering how in the past you tended to go the extra mile in digging up facts on things that actually matter, and voter fraud matters. But you are likely someone who will never go into that sort of thing, mainly because of Time Warner, but also probably because of your personal preference on believing the Democrats more than, well, anyone else, Republican or Independent. For starters, you never bring up the Project Veristas videos, where they show how voter fraud can be done and more than likely has been done.

Plus, you remember when Jill Stein tried to get a recount done in 3 states, but only succeeded in making that happen in Michigan, where it was discovered that “voting machines in one-third of the election precincts counted more ballots than the number of people recorded as walking in line to cast them.” Not to mention that an illegal alien in Dallas, Texas actually did vote in the election, but was found out and arrested and sentenced to 8 years in prison. Of course, in at least one case, a Trump supporter was also found guilty of voter fraud via voting in two different states.

Plus there’s also this study by Old Dominion University and George Mason University.

My point being that there is evidence of voter fraud. So do some better fucking research John Oliver! And don’t just rely on PolitiFact. Speaking of which:

2:17
Trump lies 69.9% of the time.

Now, honestly (I guess that’s a pun in this case), I don’t know how exactly Politifact determines these statistics, but I would say that there’s no real way to determine how much statistically a president (or presidential nominee) lies. But I can state that this statistic can’t be relied upon when you consider the other examples. Politifact states that Obama lied only around 25% of the time, and Hillary Clinton lied around 26% of the time. You have got to be fucking kidding me. The woman who lied about how sick she was until video footage showed how sick she was, when lying wasn’t of any benefit to her at all in that situation indicating just how much of a pathological liar she is, plus all the other times she lied which can be shown easily with any quick Internet or video search (Benghazi, Keystone Pipeline, emails, etc). PolitiFact says she only lied about 26% of the time. Yeah, you know what, PolitiFact is full of shit.

But don’t get me wrong, I know Trump is a liar (pretty easy to tell when he’s lying too, which honestly I’d say is a pro for the American people, not that he lies, but that you can easily tell when he is). As John said, all politicians are liars. What is important is what they lie about. So far from what I’ve seen, Trump tends to lie about petty stuff much more often than he does the stuff that matters. Besides, if he does lie about something important and significant, which shouldn’t be difficult to catch him on if he does and if he lies as often as PolitiFact says he does, he’ll be caught and impeached easily enough.

3:50

“How did we get a pathological liar in the White House?”

Pretty sure we were in a lose-lose situation in that regard with the 2016 election.

4:49
Trump lied about Obama’s birth certificate. Or so John Oliver says. If I recall correctly, he didn’t lie. He said he hired some experts to check to see if Obama’s certificate is valid. Granted, it ended up being a waste of time (as many rightly stated from the beginning), but I don’t believe Trump ever just flat-out said, “His birth certificate is a fake and I can prove it.”

That aside, John does call bullshit on various things that Trump should be called out (and even made fun of) on. It’s nice that Oliver makes the connection between cable news on television and Trump’s tweets (8:33) The problem is that Oliver is stating that certain issues that Trump is raising are also lies, when in fact they’re not.

10:41
Breitbart headlines pointed out, stating that they’re bad, and that Steve Bannon is bad, and that makes Trump bad for using them as a source of information. Well, I decided to take a look into those pages (and I usually don’t read Breitbart).

Headline #1: Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy
The article basically states (with sources from sites such as TheHuffingtonPost, EurekaAlert, LiveScience, and CBS News) that some birth control pills can cause women to increase in weight, gain an unsexy voice, jiggle wrong, choose the wrong mates, makes women sluts, makes men unmanly, gives you fat thighs, and destroys the institution of marriage (the latter subject of which is highly questionable considering it has no source nor any indication of how it got the statistics for the graph they use). Since the article has sources and makes some points (albeit in a blunt politically incorrect and borderline trolling fashion), I’d say it’s up to each individual to go to the site and decide for themselves if Breitbart (or at least the author of the article Milo; yes, THAT Milo) is full of shit or worth considering. Either that or take the time to go into the article in detail on the show and point out why exactly it’s a bad article. And stating that the headline is offensive isn’t good enough you cheeky bastard.

Headline #2: Racist, Pro-Nazi Roots of Planned Parenthood Revealed
Ok, yeah, I find some of the connections this article is making to be a stretch. Something about how the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a Nazi supporter in 1938, supported the idea of creating a superior species in that those who are “unfit” should be sterilized so that they do not make children of their own, and that somehow this belief still lives on in Planned Parenthood to this day. Consider me skeptical, at the very least, of this.

Headline #3: Hoist It High And Proud: The Confederate Flag Proclaims A Glorious Heritage
Ok, I’m not too keen on the idea that one should be proud to hoist the confederate flag (even though that wasn’t the official flag symbol among several others used during the civil war). That just doesn’t seem right considering that the flag tends to be a symbol of racism and pro-slavery. That being said, the article does make some good point on how ridiculous censorship had gotten (at the time the article was written, 7-1-2015). To quote from the article:

Google blocked digital ads that showed the flag and manufacturers pledged to stop producing it. But Nazi and Communist flags continue to be marketed on many American websites. At the outer fringe of irrationality, film critic Lou Lumenick, in the Washington Post, made a scathing attack on Gone With the Wind, the most iconic American film of the first half of the 20th century. It also resulted in the first award of an Oscar to a black actor. Lumenick did not, as some people stunned by his diatribe assumed, call for a ban on the film. But the attempt by the left to deride people who thought a ban was coming ignored the fact that any liberal denunciation of a cultural work almost routinely leads to a prohibition, so the reaction was perfectly logical.

Flags, statues, church windows, street names, films, novels, even an elementary school in California named after Robert E Lee – all are threatened with being swept into oblivion by a tsunami of destructive liberal triumphalism. The object is to disinherit and eradicate the historical memory and distinctive culture of millions of Americans. It is a second scorched-earth devastation of the South, cultural this time rather than material. This is Obama’s March to the Sea.

Plus the article points out that many people look at the flag considering things other than slavery. The confederate flag means more than that, or something other than that as some would argue. And the hypocrisy of allowing other flags to still be sold out there, flags which promote an idea much worse than the confederate flag does, but not sell this flag. It’s an interesting think-piece, with some caveats.

11:06
To further hit on Breitbart and Trump for using Breitbart as a source of news, John Oliver points out that Trump stated that there were swarms of muslims on rooftops celebrating the 9/11 act soon after it happened, but that Bill O’Reilly stated that isn’t factually correct, and then Trump bring up a Breitbart article that supports Trump’s claim. Now, I can’t say for certain of Trump is right or wrong on this, but there were plenty of news sources during that time period which supports this idea, all of which are cited by this article. Sources such as CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Post, CBS, and a former NYPD commissioner. So if you’re going to bash Breitbart, you’re going to have to bash those sources as well.

12:03
Ok, yeah, I fully support making fun of Alex Jones from InfoWars. Holy Christ is that guy entertaining for all the wrong reasons. That guy deserves the bashing he receives here on John Oliver’s show, and more. And I do find Trump’s association with that guy a bit worrisome.

14:30
More on John Oliver stating that the whole illegal voting theory is BS. I’ve already said my peace on that, and Oliver does nothing to put a crack in any of the sources I cited above. That’s part of the problem with John, there are some sources on some issues that he either just flat out ignores, or seems unaware of, the latter of which seems impossible considering what Oliver’s show has been able to dig up in the past.

18:25
John Oliver is apparently under the impression that the mainstream media is more reliable than Trump claims. Nevermind that Wikileaks has shown how far media bias had gone during the 2016 election, nevermind that I’ve pointed out John Oliver’s bias in the past, and nevermind that Time Warner, who owns HBO which thus owns Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, is a Clinton donor and thus a Democrat supporter. The media is biased, whether it be John Olover’s program, Fox, CNN, Breitbart, Democracy Now, and whoever the hell else is out there. Every news/entertainment media outlet is biased to some extent. It’s in my opinion that anyone and everyone should listen to several sources which have different opinions, and make up their own minds with logical reasoning. John Oliver seems to promote this idea, but pretty much implies that you should check every news source, check to see if they’re reliable, but avoid what Trump and Breitbart say at all costs.

That’s all folks.