MovieChat Forums > HarveyManFredSin > Replies
HarveyManFredSin's Replies
Yes, I don't want to entirely dismiss him, assuming he's telling the truth about being abused as a child, but I'm also inclined to roll my eyes when someone only cites their own victimisation as some sort of 'excuse' for their mistreatment/abuse of others.
However, I also think your last two points are fair, especially the last point. His cannibal fetish may be weird, but it isn't a crime, and isn't particularly probative when it comes to the question of whether or not he committed *rape*.
Totally agreed. It's just a shame that the rich spoiled princess is a minority here, since I hate to see those negative traits associated with minorities. In fact, it's really weird that the 'poor' non-princesses in the Disney canon were, until recently, white Northern European women (i.e. one of the most privileged groups in society), like Cinderella and Belle.
Still, my favourite Disney woman is Charlotte La Bouff from The Princess and the Frog. Although she wasn't born a princess, she perfectly fits the role of the spoiled, rich, hot girl, and even better, they deviated a little from the typical Disney girl physical template, and gave her bigger curves, a rounder face and larger blue eyes.
I'm white, and the fact of the reality is that white people have a certain systemic privilege in relation to everyone else, particularly in the context of Europe, and North and South America. And since white has been the beauty standard for centuries, although that's admittedly starting to change somewhat, then, yes, Otter is right that being a 'hot young *white* girl' helps, even in relation to being a 'hot young Black girl'. Heck, being white helps however young/old or hot/not one is when it comes to getting ahead in the world. That's just an unfortunate reality.
Touché.
And in the original tale (although this is clearly an element that's been omitted from most, if not all, subsequent retellings, for obvious reasons), the 'ugly' and/or 'evil' step-sisters, try to deform their feet, causing themselves to bleed, in order to somehow fit into the glass slipper.
And, yeah, a fetish for small feet is particularly weird and creepy. I don't even think Quentin Tarantino has gone that far.
That was my initial instinct, and on balance I'm still inclined to believe he's guilty of the crimes he's been accused of, and that being the case, there really is NO excuse for his actions (and I can't help thinking he's making these statements in order to somehow 'mitigate' the harm he's done).
That said, as someone who's been on the receiving end of a false allegation (albeit, NOT one that was linked to violence or sexual misconduct), and considered suicide as a result, and was sexually assaulted by another kid when I was 11/nearly 12, I almost feel like a hypocrite.
Yes, Armie Hammer is a very privileged, super-rich white man, but I don't need to have been born with a silver spoon to empathise with him with respect to (a) being sexually assaulted as a boy, and (b) feeling suicidal after a (in my case, false) allegation, but of course, that's assuming he's telling the truth about both things.
Also, despite what happened to me, I never used that as an excuse to ever sexually molest, harass, assault or prey on anyone else.
LOL!
No, I've always thought this way, and, believe me, there are a lot of self-identifying 'wokesters' who will invariably simp for the 'poor' conventionally beautiful blonde white woman (they're practically tripping over themselves to fawn over Britney, Pamela, Marilyn and Princess Diana). You see it all the time, and if anyone objects, and points out that many of these conventionally-attractive white women are in fact among the most privileged people in the world or perhaps not as 'virtuous' as the hype suggests, they're a 'misogynist' or an 'incel'.
FWIW, I *am* a progressive leftist, but I march to the beat of my own drum, and have little to do with the 'Woke Mind Set'.
Are the Nazis into 'bone-skinny' women? I thought the Nazis preferred more 'womanly' blonde white women with 'child-bearing hips'. Also, super-white skin often indicates anaemia, and is usually a sign of ethnic ancestry. I'm very pale, and from a Latin background, and I'm often mistaken for being Jewish and/or Eastern European. I think the *true* 'Aryans', as far as the Nazis were concerned, had a healthy peaches-and-cream glow to their skin, or even a tan to indicate they were athletic/outdoors types, rather than bookish and intellectual, like us super-pale stay-at-home/the-library nerdy ethnics.
LOL! Sure, I agree that part is probably true (talk about hot young white girl privilege), but it's still a pretty wretched message, and it doesn't speak much to Cinderella's supposed 'virtue' if she's only being chosen because she's a 'hot young white girl'.
She's been in many of my favourite films, including A Christmas Story, Harry and the Hendersons and Magnolia.
RIP.
Your analysis is predicated on the idea that circumstances are a product of people's actions, rather than the reality that people's actions are a product of their circumstances.
People aren't innately evil. They don't turn to terrorist/violent behaviour because of some genetic flaw, as you seem to have it (i.e. Jewish people = intelligent/competent, Muslim people = stupid/backwards, white conservatives = evil/violent, Black and white liberals = good/peace-loving). People turn to violent acts as a response to systemic oppression and persecution, or even because of traumas, including famine, natural disasters, pandemics and personal loss, that weren't the direct cause of other humans, but nonetheless, leave immense psychological burden and material hardship on their victims.
Your analysis is extremely dangerous and the flip-side of anti-Semites who believe all Jews are innately evil and/or all racists who believe all Black people are innately flawed.
No, human-beings aren't genetically programmed to be evil on account of their ethnicity or race. Anyone who believes that is basically advocating for the death penalty. Are you pro-death penalty? I'm not, because, unlike you, I believe all human-beings are capable of good and no-one is 'born bad'. That's right-wing fairytale irrational BS.
Spoken like a true centre-right Democrat or classical conservative Republican.
Whilst I don't approve of terrorism in principle, it has ALWAYS been a (often necessary) tool by the powerless in standing up to the powerful.
Israel was founded on terrorism (and that's NOT a criticism by the way), as was the end of Apartheid and the Northern Ireland Peace Process.
You're even more clueless than I imagined if you don't believe the left has traditionally deployed violence to achieve its aims in view of the immense power concentrated in the hands of the conservative right. Rich white land-owning people *don't need* to use obvious violence to achieve their means. They already hold all the cards.
Honestly, even though I find jcnyclv's politics abhorrent, and suspect my voting record would align quite closely to yours, I find your analysis of politics much more objectionable. jcnyclv's perspective is clear-sighted but for the wrong (i.e. right-wing) ends. Your ends are mostly sound, but your analysis is frankly bizarre, and as someone who has a *medical reason* for struggling with cognitive dissonance, that causes me far more *distress* than a right-winger whose stance at least makes logical sense on their own terms.
This is frankly crazy conspiracy-heavy talk.
Only the progressive media has remotely 'cozied-up' to Palestine, as you put it, and what motive would it have to do so, other than a desire to tell the truth?
Are you on the same side as Fox News, and the rest of the Murdoch press, which *does* continue to display a partisan favourability to Israel, as does the Republican Party, especially Trump's decision to officially recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital, a move that was welcomed by the US right (once again, does this describe you?) and condemned by the LEFT?
You seem to be living in the 1960s. This isn't the era of left-wing Americans moving to Israel to work on a kibbutz. Israel has significantly changed over the last thirty/forty years. And the US left (both in the media and in Congress) has only just started to *slowly* wake up to the realities concerning Israel.
You must think the left is really stupid if you think we're being manipulated by the right to seem 'repugnant to the average sane American' (presumably you mean 'non-left-wing' when you refer to the 'average sane American'). Let me guess, you're also not a fan of trans rights, seeing that's another issue that puts so-called 'sane' Americans in a bind.
No, I don't think the *actual* left should pander to the Islamophobic bigotries of the 'average' or 'sane' American.
The so-called Great Replacement Theory, is the fear far-right Americans have about being replaced by Black and brown people, with the supposed orchestration of Jews. Jews make up only 0.2% of the entire population, and 2.4% of the US population. Even the most rabid right-winger knows that Jews per se aren't replacing anyone in significant numbers, not least because the Jewish population of the US has remained fairly consistent since the turn of the 20th century and mid-20th century, the last eras that saw a large influx of Jewish immigrants to the US.
The Israeli model that you so love, has been staunchly right-wing for decades now, with a particular emphasis on military might. Since 1996, Israel has been controlled by right-wing governments for all but two years (1999-2001). No wonder it's so admired by US evangelists and Trump supporters...Once again, can you blame me for making such assumptions with respect to your politics, however much you feign 'progressive' credentials?
Also, cultural and ethnic supremacy is a very dodgy stance for anyone claiming left-wing credentials to take. You're committing a fallacy many faux or superficial 'progressives' commit, which is a failure to condemn all forms of bigotry, discrimination and ethnic/racial supremacy, on the basis that one possibly couldn't be repeating the same mistakes of previous supremacists, since the 'supremacist' group in this instance is one that has been historically the *victim* of persecution. That Jews have been persecuted throughout history, and continue to be so in Europe and the US, does not mean that Israeli Jews are incapable of oppressing others, any more than Muslims are incapable of oppressing minorities (i.e. Turkey), or Hindus are incapable of oppressing minorities (i.e. India), however much those groups may be persecuted elsewhere.
And why is mispelling a name a bigger typo than, say, confusing 'chance' for 'change', ironically in the very sentence where you're decrying *my* typo?
"Those w/ the best lives live in Israel."
Not for much longer if newly-appointed National Security Minister "expel any 'disloyal' Palestinians" Itamar Ben-Gvir has his way. Then again, even those Palestinians who remain outside Israel, in places like Hebron, aren't safe from the very terrorists, Ben-Gvir, has spoken approvingly of, such as Baruch Goldstein, who butchered 29 Palestinian Muslims in 1994.
You speak as if all the hate and persecution is on one side, and that the present Israeli government and general population is positively for a two-state solution...It isn't.
Calling someone an 'ahole' is not very good faith. It's the type of flippant, obnoxious rhetoric I associate with right-wing populists, not intellectual left-wingers.
Also, I mixed up two vowels. My apologies. It's hardly a massive error, and once again, the fact that you've chosen to pick on it, doesn't demonstrate much good faith on your part.
Yes, I know all-too-well that you style yourself as a 'leftist', but your partisan and dehumanising attack on the entire Palestinian population has given away your hand. You're not a genuine 'leftist'. You're a pro-imperialist, pro-DNC establishmentarian. Yes, you may display a few virtuous 'liberal' positions on topics like abortion and BLM (both of which I also support), but you don't seem particularly interested in truly challenging the present neoliberal order favoured by both the mainstream DNC and GOP.
If Israel knows best how to protect Israel, and the rest of the world should mind its business, perhaps Israel shouldn't be relying on a $38 billion military aid package from the US government...
Also, what is your point with respect to Cuba, Venezuala and Nicaragua etc (or even for that matter Iran* and Syria)? We're discussiing Palestine. If you want to talk about economic disparities, bear in mind that according to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency Israel is estimated to have a per capita GDP at about 10 times (or 1000% more) that of the Palestinians.
Just to be clear, I am not anti-Israel. Far from it. My position is very similar to rcnyc24's, which is to say, it is complex and refuses to point the finger at one entire nation/nationality, as your not-very-progressive OP did with respect to the Palestinians.
*And fwiw, I wholly condemn Iran's rhetoric concerning the 'destruction of Israel' as much as anyone, but the situation of the average Iranian, many of whom are clearly oppressed by their own government, is not the same as that of the average Palestinian, however much one condemn terrorism.
But you *did* defend locking a child in a cage, and did imply that child was 'born evil' (thus, partly excusing his parents' decision to throw him into the sewer, not that I'd approve of the decision even if he were, somehow, 'evil', not that such a thing as an 'evil child' exists, even in fiction).
I believe rcnyc24 is guided by their left-wing principles, and the understanding that it is fatuous to take a partisan position in the Israel/Palestine conflict, in view of 'both sides' compelling claims for the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It is rather refreshing to see such a clear-sighted approach that refuses to blame either side, and understands that over the centuries both the Palestinians and Israelis have been used as pawns in respect to this territory.
rcnyc24 seems, to their credit, to be looking beyond simple partisan politics, and the pathetic and egregiously corrupt shambles (i.e. the far-right versus the centre-right) that characterises establishment US politics.
Our *PROGRESSIVE* concern is for the people of the Middle East, who are suffering. NOT the over-privileged, corrupt, mealy-mouthed and untrustworthy politicians who dominate Congress. A plague on both their houses.
Wrong on both counts. I'm guessing you must be a Republican (or, more simply, a partisan/tribalist Democrat who votes 'left' but thinks and speaks 'right').
Israel has just elected its most right-wing government ever. Netenyahu, a close personal friend of Trump, and like Trump, Bolsonaro, Erdogan and Orban, a far-right populist who runs on a platform of religious conservatism, whilst demonising his country's minorities, has pledged to expand illegal settlements in the West Bank, whilst appointing ministers who have been convicted of inciting anti-Arab hate, after calling for Palestinians to be "expelled from Israel".
However, there are many of us who know how to condemn the far-right populism of Israel, which is not remotely reflective of the vast Jewish diaspara which, in general, is MUCH further to the left of even 'centrist' Israeli politicians, whilst also condemining anti-Semitism, including the frankly offensive anti-Semitic tropes pushed by well-meaning but ultimately quite ignorant politicians like Ilhan Omar who makes pointed references to the 'Jewish lobby' and its *supposed* influence on US politics (i.e. "It's all about the Benjamins").
Sorry, but as a staunch critic of Israel, but a huge supporter of the Jewish diaspara, your stance is incredibly misguided and flawed, and, perhaps ironically, is not too dissimilar to Trump's position (i.e. pro-Israel but anti-Jewish). Such bigotry will not wash, my right-wing friend...
"I don't remember you."
That's a shame. I remember you, Otter and howos, and a few others.
It appears my old posts are still here under my present username.
Interesting question.
Probably the entitlement of the aggrieved. They see something other people have and although they don't particularly want or need that thing, they still desire it, simply because 'more privileged' people have it. It's rather petty and pathetic, and I say this as a staunch leftist.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is still one of my all-time favourite children's books (I get a kick out of the various spoiled and naughty children's extreme behaviour and bizarre punishments), but it still offers a rather individualist/conservative message. Winning the chocolate factory isn't necessary, and doesn't do a blind bit of good for any other poor people. What Charlie's family needed was for his parents to be in decent, well-remunerated work with benefits, and for his entire family to be put in proper housing, not for him to become an underage mogul with unlimited access to junk food of limited nutritious value.