hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
1d ago
I did not ask you to watch the video to understand that the very explicit theme and plot of Gattaca is about an an alleged genetic inferior proving genetic determinism wrong. When I say subtext and you say subtext we are not talking about the same thing. Which is why I implore you to watch the video. I know it's 25 minutes and I know the guy has a depressing delivery. But it hits on all the notes, especially by the end where the effect of the subtext is contextualized. They're not making movies about Germanic ubermench heroes named Richard Europson who belong to the majority and dab on the minority, after all. Well, outside of Uwe Boll.
As for 28 Days Later, it's about a zombie outbreak and the stories of our main characters and side characters. That's what the movie is about. There's no secret. There's no hidden agenda. But there is subtext!
In case you won't watch the Gattaca video, let me put my definition of subtext to you this way. I don't believe the directors, screenwriters or anyone else were necessarily intentionally making an explicit commentary on how much they hate white people and think they are all one move away from dooming everything through racism and are otherwise beyond saving outside of a baptism through fornicating with brown people. But I am telling you that it's nevertheless the subtextual end result of their work.
The rage virus and those who have it are obviously not good. They are represented by white actors in nigh every dramatic scene. At least until a slave presenting black person uses it to take revenge on his white captors. Then it is good! There's subtext there. Coincidental enough to be intentional? Slavery bad? Revenge justified? Hmm.
Who is good in the movie? What do they represent? Who are they represented by? Is the bad guy called Judas Israel or Henry West? These questions have answers. Decisions were made. What emotionally perturbs the decision makers? What drives them to make the decisions they make? A million different things, of course. But this is what we ended up with.
These stereotypes aren't just racial, they're not just gendered or whatever else. But they are there. Black frizzy hair really is not accepted like straight blonde hair. This is true, at least in many peoples minds. There are also those who want black frizzy hair to be accepted. What kind of decisions would they make?
You could argue, as is often done, that the only subtext to be gleamed from any of this is from the racist who noticed because they are irrationally emotionally perturbed by any positive depiction of a brown person. But by the same token AdLand does exist. The creative output of artsy UK shitlibs being anti-white coded shouldn't be a shock to anyone, and the video linked demonstrates plenty of evidence to that being the case much better than I could ever do with words. It's a visual medium, after all.
hanikrummihundursvin
1d ago
Really? The bad guy is called Major Henry West. I thought it was kind of on the nose.
But yeah, I get it. It's a point that's hard to explain to those who're not big on film in the more pretentious artsy sense. The idea that screenwriting can be intentional in this way goes over most people's heads unless directly pointed out. And even then the concepts here are esoteric and dramatic enough that most don't want to entertain them regardless of anything else.
On top of that '28 Days Later' is 'entertaining' enough and the subtext is marginal enough that you could say it's not intentional at all in isolation. But if we recognize that screenwriting, including subtext, allegories and foreshadowing via various means in film are often intentional, even if they are not always tied to a subtext or narrative, then these things warrant explanation. Even if only to entertain the notion that, by coincidence, we can gleam this out of the film.
A better and more undeniable demonstration of explicit racial subtext in film is the Gattaca review by the same person. There are names and shots that only make sense in that context.
As far as I can tell these are generally 'inspired' by Mark Brahmins work. I find these to be more accessible and less pretentious than the blogposts though.
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
Yeah, I know that was your point. I'm just not buying the premise that whites are significantly more racist than other races. In fact the opposite seems to be the case. Along with everything I mentioned in my previous comment, I don't understand why whites, if they were so racist, would ever bother to create a system to curb their racism.
But then again, we might just be running into a problem of how we are measuring racism. I'd measure it as the intensity of your ingroup and outgroup bias expressions. I have a feeling you are measuring it as ability to carry out acts of destruction. In which case I'd argue that's not a function of racism but capability. Whites would in a similar sense be more dangerous than blacks, but not because they are prone to random acts of violence, but precisely because their violence is organized.
Regardless of that, I'm not terribly interested in hearing you simply restate a claim I already addressed. I'd rather you support and expand on it if you feel something is going amiss.
hanikrummihundursvin
3d ago
Well it's obvious to German censors.
Aside from that, you're not engaging with the contention. Sure, the hero kills all the stock villains, who come in all shapes and sizes, but that does not mean the villains were depicted as victimizing whites. Taken is a great example, there is a wide range of villains depicted, so there is no avenue for direct racial animus.
Another example would be Sicario. The bad guys are explicitly Mexican. The good guys are not. Except that one guy who is Mexican and gets a very specific and dramatic victim narrative. Would the movie code the same without him? No. Now if we look at movies being made and expand on this, what does the pattern look like?
I think your unwillingness to engage earnestly with the topic reveals more about you and how you view the world than it does the movies. You being a whatever you are would explain a lot.
It's the same thing that been going on in Sweden and France for a long time. Just to name examples I know of.
Reporting on crime increases ethnic tensions. The role of media, as dictated by the state, is to decrease ethnic tensions. (Ethnic tension translates to white people being angry they are being robbed, raped and killed by foreigners.)
Solution? Stop reporting on crime. But some media outlets don't play along. There's now a market for ethnic tension news. So the state swoops in and stops recording stats. The natives are no longer capable of expressing their anger at being raped and murdered. As their emotions can not find any external resonance in society. Liberal representative democracy has solved the problem!
hanikrummihundursvin
4d ago
Been a while since I saw the movie. The scene that stuck in my mind was this one. They all look whiter than the French director of the film. Tack on top of that a bunch of bad white guys who are pulling some strings. It was a very not brown coded affair in my mind. With a multiracial bad guy mix in the finale.
I mean, yeah. I exemplify Taken in my post as a movie that does not code against foreigners despite it's theme explicitly being about evil immigrant foreigners victimizing white people and then being brutally murdered by a white man.
The topic being explored here is: If the bad guys in Taken were coded brown, would it be the same movie? Obviously not. And that's an interesting affirmation that everyone understands and acts on racist phenomena. And that this song and dance is being actively played in the productions of nigh every movie. As when this song and dance is not played and whites are allowed to take revenge on the brown outsider, it sticks out like a sore thumb.
FSK ratings in Germany even take intentionality of violence into account when handing out ratings. Brutal depictions of whipping a slave in Django Unchained are not bannable, since they are, in their terms, necessary to build empathy with the victims and a disgust towards 'slavery', which translates into disgust for a white character so we can later celebrate their brutal murder. So the regulating bodies take political deliberations into account when deciding if something is verboten or not.
Well, what about disgust towards brown foreigners raping white girls? What about disgust towards activist judges that let them go free? We can celebrate a black man brutalizing 'evil whites' but not a white man brutalizing evil browns?
hanikrummihundursvin
4d ago
Maybe to an American? When I saw the movie the entire concept felt a bit far fetched and cheap.
In reality the ones 'taken' are usually young eastern European women forced into commercial rape, i.e. 'sex work'. But in the movie it's evil eastern European men taking an American girl? Not to say that there aren't a lot of evil eastern European men driving up western European crime, there are. But the movie felt like a sanitized version of that reality.
Regardless of that, calling the foreigner a foreigner or an immigrant like is done in the movie is different from actually depicting him as a foreigner. The distinction is best exemplified via depictions by Cleon Peterson.
Depends on what you mean by scientific racism. From my understanding of the term, White people didn't 'invent' 'modern science' because of racism, I would argue. It's because of other factors we generally associate with intelligence, industriousness, agreeableness and so forth. Scientific 'racism' is just a byproduct of that. So whilst there is some racist expression to be found in old 18th century anthropology, I'd argue most of that was also refuted by the better scientists at the time, who could make fact based observations about human population differences.
To clarify the point: Noticing that groups can differ on objective metrics free of 'group bias' is a very not racist thing to do. Even if those differences are 'racist'. Whilst ignoring or arguing against objective reality, based on 'in or outgroup bias' is a racist thing. So ironically, most people who are against 'scientific racism' are acting out a very base racist impulse, since they are not capable of parsing reality past it looking like a slight against their ingroup.
To that extent I'd argue most whites are less racist than other groups. As they are more capable of parsing reality and more capable of entertaining abstract concepts. A good example of this are mock jury trials.
On top of that, a lot of research into the topic drives at a similar conclusion:
On the other hand, there is evidence from the social psychological literature that the self-concept of ethnic minorities may be more dependent upon perceptions of race than the self-concept of the ethnic majority. For example, Clark (1985) reported that Black participants’ self-concept was related to their ratings of Blacks, whereas the same relationship was not found with White participants. Grier and Deshpande (2001) further reported that Black participants placed a higher importance on race than did White participants, and that this racial importance predicted consumer decisions. It is possible that group identity may be stronger among minorities than among majority race individuals, making minority jurors more likely to exhibit an own-race bias.
The study linked above also highlighted that in mock jury trials, the whites are a minority in their racial fairness. At least when compared with American blacks. Who are a lot more prone to racial bias in their decision making.
Considering all of that, I'd say it's clear whites are not being protected from their own racist tendencies, a concept explored in the movie 28 Days Later but are being marginalized, otherized and attacked precisely because they are not racist. This is easily proven by simple logic. If whites were racist, they wouldn't be in this position in the first place.
hanikrummihundursvin
4d ago
It's an interesting affirmation that everyone understands and acts on racist phenomena.
"Taken" doesn't code 'the outsiders are harming us' i.e. whites, but this movie does. So the almonds of some German bureaucrat got activated and the movie is a no go.
It's probably the most ubiquitous and interesting dynamic in western media production and no one talks about it. But the incredible dance around never having the outsider victimizing whites is the greatest commonality all modern movies share. And if that is ever a theme, it's explored in such a way as to demonstrate that whites feeling victimized and acting on those emotions are wrong in some way.
On the flipside there's no shortage of 'brown person victimized by cruel evil white folk' movies.
Everyone understands this. Everyone knows. The only difference is whether ones brain can see the patterns or if it can and chooses to ignore it because 'evil white people' codes as real on some level in ones brain.
tl;dr: Trump was told to jump higher than he could. His knees buckled on the landing and now he's crawling around telling the zionists that he's sorry he can't stand up to Iran. The zionist response when he asks for a hand is to spit on him for being weak. Genuinely, even the antisemites are shocked.
I feel like there was an old white nationalist 2.0 cope around the time where ISIS was at its peak about AIPAC and Israel that ran somewhere along the lines of: AIPAC has a better grip on America than America has a grip on the middle east.
I think the truth of that observation is unfolding in front of us to a certain extent. The weakest link in the Israel/AIPAC dynamic is Israel. AIPAC can still unseat elected representatives at will. Most recently demonstrated with Massie. American politicians still dance to their tune. It's Israel, whose actions became incoherent after Oct.7, culminating with this Iran ordeal, that's the problem in this dynamic.
I think the only interesting answer to the question can come from zionists and adjacent folk. Nigh every other group that's not zionist, from progressives to regressives, wants to dump the Israelis tomorrow. The entire world is getting sick of Israel and its behavior. So from a zionist perspective: What ever was the plan here?
Like, zionists have this iron grip on US foreign policy. What did they want the US to do? Unless the plan is to literally genocide every single Arab via US military might so that Israel can do whatever it wants in the region, then US involvement stops making sense very quickly. The US can bomb things. They can do economic coercions, they can occupy big buildings in cities, build FOBs in valleys and patrol roads in Humvees. But they can't do much else. As Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated.
Americans have thousands of their soldiers dead, tens of thousands if you count the suicides, trillions spent, and nothing to show for it. And now we are reading that Israel, not just the 'Netanyahu government' but a sizeable portion of the Israeli public and America based zionists, wanted America to commit to another middle East war effort with no explicit end goal, no theory for victory, and no discernable US gain outside of rank delusions that Iran intends to nuke Huston and Vienna if ever given the chance. We don't even have the pretense of regime change anymore.
The cost of this war, however, would be enormous. Not just in direct military spending, but with every economist (spit) sounding the alarm bells that this would prove catastrophic for global markets. Countries most affected, including some US allies, have already started rationing programs. Meanwhile Russia, US's geopolitical enemy, has been making bank month over month due to this war and the oil/gas market disruptions.
This comes across as incoherent lunacy. Destabilizing the middle east? Eh, on some level that makes sense, even if I oppose and abhor it and the negative consequences it has had for not just the middle east but Europe. But if this is the continuation... What's the plan, where's the big picture everyone's missing? I can't even put together how zionists are pretending to be allies with the US at this point. That they even attribute a theory of mind to Americans.
In defense of the zionists, AIPAC is still so strong they can be forgiven for thinking less of Americans. So if there is any weight behind these events, it will come down on Netanyahu first, Israel second, AIPAC a distant third. So long as the Israeli lobby holds the keys to a plurality of public offices in the US, they will remain strong. But Israel needs to find some stability fast. Maybe Netanyahu is playing the role of a future sacrificial chicken perfectly. Sin as much as you can before the head goes off.
To that extent the answer to the question is clear. Let Netanyahu take as much as he can before we give the Western cattle a new shepherd.
Nuclear AI drones, the news is taking Facebook by storm.
But you raise a very good point. The resolution of this war doesn't do anything to resolve the conflicting interests that caused it. Something has to give.
hanikrummihundursvin
11d ago
Counting on Iran to respect the invisible lines globohomo relies on to survive is a fools gambit given Iran exists in its current state precisely because it did not respect those invisible lines. It's a pillar of their identity. On the flipside, the west is losing their identity fast through nothing but their own inaction and stupidity. What globohomo will be left to subjugate Iran in a 100 years?
I think the US and EU should recognize that the market centric self hating mass migration fueled jew worshipping ideology they've been holding on to is a dead end. Sacrificing more white men to keep this satanic third world welfare program running is not better than the alternative. I'd think the horrors from Ukraine exemplify what can happen when an empire in name only tries to flex its 'might'.
The west needs to think inward. The leaders are weak, the people even more so. Foreign policy is just a cope for this state of affairs. The concept itself becoming incoherent and absurd when the people running the show are either zionists or third worldist at heart. It's a big theater to make the dead ends of humanity feel like they are a part of some forward momentum, some progression. When in reality they sold their future out for the promise of cheaper strawberries and the emotional warmth and moral superiority the TV gave them when it desecrated their ingroup in the name of a morality where everyone can be good so long as we all hate white people. The future doesn't concern the people of the west. They've morally abdicated from it. Black women should just run everything.
America has been an empire in name only for some time now. It doesn't export Americanism. It exports the poison that is killing it. The elections are becoming fake, the leaders foreign ideologues. The walls are closing in. People wish for one last hurrah directed against a manufactured enemy that exists because of an incoherent foreign policy dictated to the Americans by foreigners.
It's all tits up and we need a mental reset. And whilst the best we've gotten so far are Alex Jones edits and looks obsessed men suntanning their taints, there was a time when things were different in spirit, even if just for a little while. But recognizing that would require some humility and courage, which is a big thing to ask of Americans and Europeans.
These claims would be meaningful since they're coming from the US and seem to represent some major concessions. But Trump has in typical fashion said that some aspects of the deal, such as the 300bn reconstruction plan, are not real. So despite all this information coming out we are sadly not that much further along from where we started. Trump seems perfectly willing to flaunt his executive authority over anything, and the republicans seem to have no capability to rein him in.
That being said, the 300bn might just be a negotiating tactic. A giant carrot that Trump can chop up as needed. But as you detail, the rest of the deal is hardly a win for the US either so...
On the flipside there is no telling what is going on in Iran right now. The Americans manipulating their own markets whilst getting lost in their own fog of war has been shielding the Iranians from making any definitive decisions. I mean, it's not hard to imagine some Shia hardliners salivating over the potential economic turmoil that could be unleashed if the strait remains closed. Militant factions within Iran might see this as a once in a lifetime opportunity. Perhaps there is still chance for the Iran regime to tear itself apart over the deal, and we can all declare Trump the greatest president in US history. But that's wild speculation.
The only clear signal coming out of all of this is from the zionists. They are not happy. And it's easy to see why. But this began years ago with zionists railing against the JCPOA. The Republicans along with Trump tear the deal to pieces as zionist strategy dictates. They then attack Iran. Now we are here and regardless of how one imagines the war effort went, we are looking at a negotiation that begins with terms so much more favorable for Iran than the JCPOA ever was that one has to wonder: What was the meaning of all of this? What did anyone ever expect to gain? Was this all just a half court hail Mary throw to win the game with 30 minutes left on the clock like we're in some Disney movie? No really, what is this? I'm so confused.
hanikrummihundursvin
12d ago
Again, we are making a statement that applies to both sides in equal measure.
hanikrummihundursvin
12d ago
Given the conflicting claims of Iran and the US, that doesn't change anything. You don't know the terms of the deal, but are giving the US side rumors more credence, and are declaring the alleged deal a victory. You then complain that someone takes the Iran side more seriously and declares them the winners. Unless we are not reading about the same deal and you consider a 300bn aid packet to Iran a win.
hanikrummihundursvin
12d ago
So nobody knows what really happened, but at least we're having fun.
I read this as: We don't know what's in the deal, but lets pretend to. Since you then wrote a post that declared the deal a victory and a vindication of Trump without knowing what was in it.
I mean, what was the point of the original comment if you were going to pull out this stop, which applies to everything you've said in equal measure?
I don't disagree. My point was that the state of affairs Farage represents is what got us to this point in the first place. And as your post implicitly reiterates, Farage doesn't pose any threat to that state of affairs. Instead he is riding the wave of suffering and strife it creates, without any logical recourse to end it.
If the British public is not ready to assert their claim as the rightful and sole owners of their lands, then that's a problem that needs to be realized and solved. But as I said, Farage does not represent any move towards that direction. The realization I'm trying to convey is that the best case scenario for a Farage government would be a more skillfully managed decline of the British nations. It's better in the short term, but the long term result is the same. The end of the British people.
This is an established paradigm in modern right wing politics. Historically there are two camps that believe in some form of solution to this existential crisis of the west. The Secretly Based Camp and the Accelerationist Camp. The SBC believes that there are secretly based politicians that are playing electoral politics, hiding their power level just enough to get elected so they can save the country. The Accelerationist camp believes that the accelerated deterioration of the native populations QoL is a mechanism that can wake them up to act in a more radical way in their own self interest.
To summarize, Farage represents the worst option. He's neither secretly based nor trying to upset the status quo. Instead he is cashing out on all the pent up pressure that the negative effects of the status quo create without representing any chance to correct the course.
Now, maybe Farage represents something different and new that exists outside this paradigm. One can only hope. But I don't see why one would think that considering we now have an established history of SBC candidates failing to live up to the hopes that were tied to them. Farage seems to fit neatly into the established paradigm as what's commonly referred to as a Release Valve. I don't think that's an unfair description until proven otherwise.
I'd think that the example of the old lady refusing to rent to non-whites would be particularly pertinent given the modern dynamic where hotel owners rent out every room to the government so it can house migrants in them. And then these migrants rape women and children. Just search 'uk migrant hotel rape'. It's practically a sport at this point.
I think you are not paying the respect prejudice deserves. And that this is a cognitive and moral failing on your part. You are looking at the words, not the emotion.
I saw this a lot in the aftermath of the big purge of the Alt-Right from YouTube. Where lefty youtubers could claim, after the fact, that they ultimately won and that the alt-righters had always been kind of stupid. And to an extent that's not an inaccurate observation. There were a lot of 'vapid' and 'stupid' creators in that space. They didn't really understand HBD to any relevant extent, they didn't do well in debates and they certainly could not predict how bad things could get. But they did get an audience. How? Principally because their attention was on the same gut wrenching worry others felt. That the current state of affairs was bad. They could not necessarily articulate why. But they had a gut feeling and others could emotionally resonate with that.
To that extent, it should be a source of embarrassment, continuously, for every person that was more intelligent, erudite, or otherwise better equipped to handle reality, that they are continuously shown up by random racists when it comes to identifying threats. The trajectory of the western world has been so comically bad the past three decades that it's hard to imagine how it could have gone worse.
Turns out, almost every economist is a retard, actually. Along with every educated person that can read, write and reason yet fail to recognize that no, importing the third world will not be an economic benefit, colonialism didn't make Africa poor and 'poverty' doesn't make black people rape. The racist could not necessarily articulate why he knows what he knows or believes what he believes. But they had a gut feeling that has outshone every alternative. Sure, they continuously fumble the moment, make bad arguments and otherwise embarrass themselves, but ultimately they've not been the ones who've been wrong when it counts.
Farage has been saying things for a long time. So far he has only proven to be a populist voice with the very same 'moderate' anti-white policies of Labour and the Tories. Ready to play the respectability politics and then lose when push comes to shove and his party is faced with the same problems that have driven the majority of the west towards the now typical anti-white solutions.
Without a worldview that is a hardline fact based contradiction to the blank slate alternative and without the moral backbone to stand by a specific people, there will be no positive change. Reform has explicitly rejected all avenues that can logically lead to success. They can win elections, but what will they resort to when the left political machine re-asserts their claim on the moral mandate that Reform refuses to contest? When the sheer weight of demographic change starts impacting every aspect of political life? Will Reform really get a steady enough supply of ethnically motivated rape gangs, murders and other crime to challenge the moral narrative that every western media outlet is churning out to their captive audience 24/7?
Reform is not fighting a war. They're an informal surrender. Be prim and proper, don't rock the boat, keep a stiff upper lip and don't look at the endless horde of foreigners waiting on the horizon that are all motivated by an ethnic ideology that demonizes native Brits.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
I'm all for accepting that people can change, but if it's a choice between a person who has shown they are capable of being a Nazi and a person who hasn't done that, well it's a pretty big disadvantage.
What's the functional difference between being a nazi and being a zionist? Or is this just a metric dependent on what is further outside the Overton Window?
Outside of that you're not offering anything concrete here that relates to the tattoo that rises above class sneering. To that extent you answer your own question. A peachy clean political candidate that looks like they were cooked up in a lab is the exact aesthetic someone like Platner counters.
The hysteria around this is entirely predictable. The 'upper classes', or the people pretending to be upper class, really do not like the lower classes. But they do often talk in favor of representation and class mobility in theory. Well, here you have that representation personified in Platner. But as we see in practice, that representation is low class coded, of course! So 'upper class' folks instinctively, balk and sneer. 'How could he? I would never!'
Lets just face the music. The German army was cool. The SS were cool. The uniforms, runes, equipment, it's all aesthetically cool. Especially to young men who have little or no reason to otherize Germans.
To that extent there's no reason for a marine grunt to not get a cool tattoo. Cool people don't care about the opinion of some hysteric jews that see another shoah in everything. Or maybe it's the opposite, and that's kind of what gives the aesthetic an edge. After all, Satanism wouldn't mean much if it wasn't for hysterical concerned Christian mothers.
That being said, the entire news cycle around this is just political propaganda. There is no reality to this, and no controversy. Just an emotional whirlpool kept going through mass media soundbites generated entirely to push a narrative through any means available. The safest bet would be that Platner is getting negative press from more than one angle due to his ongoing political campaign and pro-Palestinian rhetoric.
But lets hash this out. If the idea is that a secret nazi is running on a Dem ticket in Maine to launch another holocaust then we can say that. If that is not the case, what is the argument other than class sneering?
Even if Platner was a nazi, is the contention that he is one now? If not, is the contention that if anyone at any point was a nazi, they are invalid in the future?
If he wasn't a nazi but knowingly got a nazi tattoo, is that invalidating? If so, why?
It's silly theater. None of the questions are explored or answered. It's just a platform for interested parties to performatively huff and puff.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
The little lefty media exposure I've had of this guy was generally positive. If a small /r/socialism thread offering lukewarm critiques is all one has in the pocket to demonstrate that the far left does not like him... eh, that's pretty weak sauce. Those folks are generally not fans of electoral politics anyway. Sneeringly holding out for the revolution.
That being said, why shouldn't the Democrats elect guys like Mamdani if that's what the voters want? I don't see the republicans offer any relevant or salient opposition to that development.
That's part of what irked me about the article. It didn't feel like a very traditional perspective, despite coming from an allegedly traditional Orthodox woman. As you point out, and I am generally ignorant of, there are a lot of elements of the faith and the history of the church that are left unexplored relating to the topic.
But at the same time, one could argue that people are flocking towards 'traditionalism' in general since it is being presented as a solution to their modern problems. I'm not sure executions or formalized acceptance of being an incel are what they are looking for. So whilst I lament that there was a rather modern woman presenting herself and her modern problems as being Orthodox, I can also sympathize with her woes. She was having a hard time finding or formulating solutions within Orthodoxy, along with other people. That's a legitimate concern to raise, despite the alleged faults of the messenger.
To that extent the article serves as a sideways critique of much of the generally male dominated Traditional online discourse, that oversells Traditionalism as a silver bullet to a lot of our modern woes when it's not so clear that it is.
This does not feel like a good faith interaction. You asked me a question, I gave a detailed answer. If you can't watch videos you think are AI, then I don't care. I don't need to qualify anything to you at all and you can remain ignorant on whatever topic you want for whatever sake you choose. But honestly, I don't believe what you are saying right now since the videos don't sound like AI to me. It just sounds like you're erecting an arbitrary hurdle to shield yourself from earnest engagement. I don't know why and it feels like a shame. The videos are well made and cover an interesting topic.
I was not sure if the person I was responding to was a serious or just a troll. So it felt right to include video material to figure out what level of engagement I was actually getting from them. People generally have opinions on film more readily available than opinions on 18th century anthropology and studies on racism in jury trials.
It's also very relevant to the prescriptive position that person was taking about how media should serve a role in shielding whites from information that would otherwise allegedly cause them to lash out in racist furor. The sentiment reminded me of the monkey tied down in front of TV's in 28 Days Later, as explored in the video. Showing the monkey violent imagery of mob justice and riots made the monkey crazy with rage. Very similar to what that person believed would happen to whites.
More options
Context Copy link