MovieChat Forums > InquiringMind > Replies
InquiringMind's Replies
The future is female. The world belongs to the degenerate dуkе girl boss. A good man is a castrated man.
SLAAAAAYYYYYY KWEEEEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!!!11111!!1!!!!!!!1!!!!111111111!!!!!!!!!!!
Fake news.
Not as good as early Vikings during Ragnar's story, but as good or better than the later Vikings.
Downside is, there is wokeness injected into the story; They had a colored woman as a leader of the Vikings in Kattegat. Woke absurdity has no bounds.
Why didn't they cast a non-binary degenerate? Fuсkіng bigots.
Woke degenerates are vandalizing our culture.
This has nothing to do with whether there were black vikings historically or not. The only reason we have a colored woman playing a viking, and a leader no less, is because of woke dеgеnеrаtеѕ that have infested Hollywood like cockroaches and infected the entertainment industry with woke rеtаrdаtіоn.
Wokies are the lowest form of life. Lower than pond scum. They should be pushed out to the fringes of society where they belong.
Every Wokie should be terminated...In Minecraft.
You can't expect a woman to be able to tell the difference between a robot and an alien. Especially when they are emotional. Amiright?
Zing!
It's not offensive to normal people. Like you said, that is how Indians sound like. But to the woke mind, it is highly offensive. Anyone who does it is at the risk of getting cancelled by the woke degenerate horde.
Unfortunately in today's environment and by today's woke standards he has committed a sin that he must now atone for. According to woke orthodoxy, brown face, like black face, is prohibited. It is a grievous sin. Anyone who commits such a heinous act must constantly apologize and beg for forgiveness or risk getting cancelled by the degenerate woke horde.
A white guy wearing brown face and doing an offensive Indian accent certainly wouldn't work. Although I would love for someone to have the balls to try it just to trigger the Wokesters and degenerates.
On this we are simpatico.
Solidarity brother.
And yes, you liberals have become anti free speech pro war authoritarian little fascists. You just happen to worship at the altar of the alphabet people. Just because you love queers doesn't mean you're any less of a fascist.
You are woke rainbow fascists.
I'm not a Republican. I'm a socialist. I voted Green Party all my life, except in 2008 when I voted for Obama once.
Check your assumptions.
Fool you better check yo' self before you wiggity wiggity wreck yo' self!
That is true to some extent. It depends how broadly you define political. At some point it becomes a philosophical question. What I'm talking about is movies that have no woke sanctimonious moralizing and no degeneracy. So politics, but in a narrow sense.
That is true to some extent. It depends how broadly you define political. At some point it becomes a philosophical question. What I'm talking about is movies that have no woke sanctimonious moralizing and no degeneracy. So politics, but in a narrow sense.
Finally, a good, dare I say, GREAT, point from Kowalski. Yes! Kill all smartphones. We should do to them what Peter Gibbons, Samir, and Michael Bolton did to the copy machine in Office Space:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KinUMIS3Yc
Today I watched the 1986 film 'The Boy Who Could Fly'. It's an 80's flick family/drama/fantasy type of movie. It has a kind of sad feel through out the film because it's about a family that has just lost their farther to cancer. They move next door to an autistic boy who can't speak but supposedly can fly. It's a really sweet and gentle kind of movie but without being corny. I wish our culture can produce movies like this again.
Everything our contemporary culture produces has a kind of edge and intensity to it while at the same time being prudish. On top of that you have the overbearing sanctimonious woke moralizing and degeneracy that is getting so exhausting. Even kids and family movies have that kind of edge and biting kind of humor, sarcasm, etc.
I highly recommend The Boy Who Could Fly for anyone who wants a gentle family movie with a little bit of mid 80's nostalgia.
Our culture is in serious need of movies like this.
PART 2
This is why I propose the idea of a UBD (Universal Basic Dividend). Unlike a UBI, a UBD is not based on taxes, it would be based on a collective ownership of resources. For example, the oil we export as country can be owned by all of us as citizens instead of one corporation, and we could get dividends based on the shares we own in that oil. We could do this with all sorts of natural resources or various other exports. The idea is that every citizen would simply own a share, just like having shares in Amazon or Apple, but this one you couldn't trade or sell, you would simply own it by virtue of being a citizen of the United States. Like any other share, these shares would pay you out a monthly dividend. We could set up a system where you essentially get the same result as a basic income; For example, every US citizen on average receives ~$5000 from the profits of the resources that belong to all of us. Because in this system they DO belong to all of us. With oil for example, instead of ExxonMobil owning the oil, we would own the oil collectively. This is just one idea. There are many ways that we could arrange society that would benefit the many instead of the few. Helping the people who actually need it, instead of propping up a bunch of parasitic rapacious oligarchs.
By the way, if you think my idea is pie in the sky, It's not. We already have it here in America and had for a long time in Alaska. Residents get a monthly dividend from oil there. It is collectively owned. And it's a Republican state.
Socialism is about the workers owning the means of production. That's it. It has nothing to do with not working or getting something for free. What you're talking about is a welfare state, something that is often desired by people in a socialist society, like a UBI for example (more on that later). The idea is that capitalism is based on exploitation. A capitalist hires an employee. An employee uses his labor to make a chair. The capitalist sells the chair for $10. Therefore the chair is worth $10 dollars. But the capitalist can't pay the employee the $10 because there is no benefit for him, so he pays him $5. So the employee gets $5 for $10 of work in order for the capitalist to exist. This is the arrangement. It doesn't even matter if the employee is fine with being exploited (some slaves didn't mind being slaves, they had good masters), but it is exploitation nonetheless. This is what socialism attempts to solve. In the work place, it wants to make every worker an owner and operator of the enterprise so there is no exploitation. In the government, it wants a party that represents the working class, instead of large multi national corporations.
And yes, socialists have historically been the hardest working people. Socialists and communists were the blue collared workers of America. They helped to unionize America in the 30's. They have been erased from history because of anti-communist propaganda.
Lastly, the welfare state. Yes there is for example the UBI (Universal Basic Income). It gives everyone for example a $1000/mo regardless whether you work or not. It is a nice idea. There are benefits to it. But there is one major flaw. You alluded to it. UBI is based on taxes. This means that you as a worker are going to be paying for people who don't work. This is a problem, not for me, I don't mind paying for others, but generally people are going to become angry, bitter, resentful and it is going to cause division among the poor and working classes. END OF PART 1