site banner

FILM REVIEW: India the Worst country on Earth

4Chan's First Feature film is also the first Feature length AI Film.

The Conceit? Aside from a few Joke stills, none of the visual film is AI. It is a "Nature Documentary" Narrated by David Attenborough... It is also maybe the most disturbing film ever made, and possibly the most important/impactful film of the decades so far.

Reality is more terrifying than fiction.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Meta: I think this post is not appropriate as a top level post.

The content thematic would easily qualify it for the culture war thread.

I would still think it is a bit short for the CW top level post, little more than a link and a few lines of context.

Compare with that natural selection post. At least that post was articulate enough, even if I also disagree with its content (but much less vehemently).

Having top level posts like this (from the quotations from other comments, I am not reading the link) makes us appear like a bunch of internet racists. At least we could try to appear to be a bunch of eloquent internet racists.

I must disagree. Kulak is a controversial - yes, but very well established poster in the Motte community. Kulak's posting history reaches 2019, maybe earlier. I think you are long enough here to know this. The fact that he is tolerated despite his edginess means something, probably many users (including me) find his writings valuable in some sense. And look how many comments this posted has generated so far. Isn't this discussion something what we are here for?

Furthermore, I share the opinion, that the Motte is in desperate need of top posters, even mediocre, because otherwise one can easily see where this evolution is going. Users will be hesitant about writing top posts and we will be left with nothing but CW thread with comments which take hours to read and even more time to reply and only some small subgroup of the smartest/most involved Mottizens being able to contribute without getting scoffed.

I made the count and Kulak's essay is around 4000 words, while the natural selection post is about 1600 words, so I don't find the argument about length convincing.

I think of myself as pretty radicalized, but even I find the content of the movie and of the essay off-putting. And it's not about the scatology and gore, the idea of labeling any group of people 'subhuman' is too much to bear. But the argument that the post makes us 'appear like a bunch of racists' is the weakest argument I can think of. This is some sort of an Argument from authority but in its most mediocre form: "What will the people think about us?" I am not going to self-censor myself because some group of people I don't care about will think badly about me. I am interested only in people who will find integrity in my views and actions. And I don't really think a lot of people care what the Motte thinks and writes anyway.

To clarify I never used the word "SubHuman" in the piece.

Only "subspecies of human", of which Whites, or however you like to divide it are another subspecies. (everyone is a member of some subspecies)

My argument is not that we must despise them or hate them, but that whatever empathy and projection of deep kinship "Brotherhood of man" is clearly misplaced, given that, as displayed by the discomfort of the film, many cannot even bear to look on them whilst employing this Euro-anthropomorphism.

Although Thames wants India nuked, I'd argue there is a middle ground between believing on the one hand white people owe just as much care and empathy to brown children as their own and should go full effective altruists sending every dime they earn into the maw of Sub-Continental parasite prevention , and on the other believing that no brown feet must ever walk the earth again.

We can just care LESS for them. We can rank our preferences, place them in a farther circle of concern where they can't affect our lifestyles and environments, and choose to just merely tolerate them without ever accepting them or embracing them.

Our Choices are not between universal unconditional love and absolute exterminationist hatred. We can just choose to neither love them nor empathize with them, just as every single human being to ever exist before the Great Awakening would have assumed you'd feel about people you've never met on the otherside of the world.

Mankind is not a brotherhood, you are under no obligation to love or identify with people across the globe who seemingly despise your every value and aesthetic, you don't owe them a dime, and if you love their children as you love yours then you're a bad parent who hates your children.

Just stop thinking its the end of history and all is one and one is all... and instead think like every other human being for the past 10,000 years and every human being whose lines will manage to survive the next 10,000.

Love Beauty, hate ugliness, love your own, don't care about strangers you've never met.

Your worth as a person is not determined by what you feel in your heart for people you've never met, don't like, are not related to you, and whom you never intend to and certainly don't want to meet.

Hate them if you want to, stop caring, think about it a little and then go to something else, but stop torturing yourself imagining your moral worth depends on your ability to love people whom you clearly don't... all you're doing is alienating yourself from the family, kin, and ethnicities you actually do love.