Film and television discussion thread

Discuss everything else: politics, society, culture, science, philosophy, ideas, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Rudiger
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 919
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 2483
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: Finasteride, Dutasteride, minoxidil, Biotin, Dermarolling, Nizoral

Re: Film and television discussion thread

Post by Rudiger » 6 months ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
6 months ago
I watch nearly everything with subtitles.
I watch porn with subtitles to contrast the scripted with the improv and see what's better
~get 1k likes and party~ 8-)

User avatar
blackg
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1192
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 1586

Re: Film and television discussion thread

Post by blackg » 6 months ago

koolaidshade wrote:
6 months ago
watched the first 2 episodes of altered carbon.

Its alright so far, but the dialogue audio is complete shit. the background/music is louder than the dialogue and its hard to hear what the characters are saying/mumbling.

I havent figured out how to turn on subtitles on my roommate's blue ray whatever thingy, and i cant really turn up the volume too loud for obvious reasons
Headphones help me in this regard, along with a subtitles function (if available).
marry me, Kaitlin

User avatar
C4L
Hair Loss Rookie
Hair Loss Rookie
Posts: 126
Joined: 9 months ago
Reputation: 212
Norwood: NW3.5
Regimen: none

Re: Film and television discussion thread

Post by C4L » 6 months ago

I'm watching Vikings now and it's full of SO ANNOYING FEMINIST AND LEFTIST PROPAGANDA.

In the one of the first episode there was a moment when they said that cuckolding (raising a child from a wife who cheated) is a will of gods (just lol).

User avatar
rclark
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1047
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 1152
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: Finasteride 1 mg daily, Progesterone 2% (22mg daily), Minoxidil 15% hair growth only).
Using 1.5 mm needle on all bald/balding areas weekly.

Re: Film and television discussion thread

Post by rclark » 6 months ago

C4L wrote:
6 months ago
I'm watching Vikings now and it's full of SO ANNOYING FEMINIST AND LEFTIST PROPAGANDA.

In the one of the first episode there was a moment when they said that cuckolding (raising a child from a wife who cheated) is a will of gods (just lol).
It does seem that way, but the latest season, I think Lagatha is going to be executed.

Do you like Game of Thrones? I used to like it, but after season 7 I'm done with it.

User avatar
yettee
Hair Loss Rookie
Hair Loss Rookie
Posts: 231
Joined: 8 months ago
Reputation: 636
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Minoxidil

Re: Film and television discussion thread

Post by yettee » 5 months ago

Admin wrote:
5 months ago
You are a very imaginative person and good at postmodernist deconstruction, I'll at least give you that.

It makes me laugh and angry at the same time, as it appears clever but it's at the same time an assault on reality.

I recently watched a movie released in 1992 called the player, it had good moments but during the second part of the movie, I started feeling slightly sick physically, I felt anger in front of the unfolding of that story, at a point, I realized that the director was actively mocking the audience and taking us for fools, there's even a scene where the whole cast laughs uncontrollably and we can't help but being like "what the hell is going on?!".

Unsurprisingly, after I gave the movie a 6/10 and set out to search for an explanation, wrongly thinking that I might have missed something. I stumbled on this page:

http://thecresset.org/FilmArchive/1992/ ... 01992.html

The movie was of course a stinking pile of postmodernist garbage. I can understand why some people enjoy such deconstructions of reality which actively leave out a vital part of reality in order to make its absurd narrative work. I clearly don't, even though it's quite easy to flip postmodern thoughts back on their feet once you've been given the tools to do so, mainly understanding that you don't meddle with the structure of reality without paying a price.
I've seen the Player several times. I will admit that I love it and see it as an all-time great movie, and it's known as one. Your interpretation is insightful, as was its deconstruction in that article. Actually, I don't disagree with anything you wrote or most of the article (other than not liking it :D ). However I see one aspect of it differently and I guess that's crucial. I don't think Altman was mocking the audience. Or rather, he was, but he was including himself in the group to be mocked, rather than himself being strictly a mocker. For me he is saying, we who engage in this shallow entertainment which is popular culture, both as audience and creators, are shallow hypocrites for pretending that we are creating/enjoying something great, when it's all just garbage. We produce the garbage without a shred of real art or noble intent, and the audience eats it. It's made clear that virtually every artist in the movie is creating their art for money and fame rather than for arts sake.

However, there is in fact a center of morality in the movie, people who are not fooled by the Hollywood tricks (as Altman sees it) and who are not hypnotised by it, and who are "real" people who express real human emotion: the police. Whoopi Goldberg and Lyle Lovett consistently do everything they can to bring the murderer (who is himself a garbage producer) down. They mock him, are irritated and infuriated by him, and at the end, when he manages to manipulate his way out of trouble, they are frustrated and sad and stare at him angrily. At the end of the movie when we hear the directors voice, I dont think its to mock the audience, but rather to condemn himself: he's not a sympathetic figure and we are not meant to like him, identify with him or agree with him. He (and the main character) have escaped justice, but they are to be scorned, not admired, because its clear that they have, in fact, escaped justice. So... without the inclusion of the police as the center of moral gravity in the film, and their evident, very real, human emotions and frustrations over not being able to bring the protagonist to justice, I think I'd share some of your queasy feeling. But taking the police into account, I dont think the audience is being mocked at all. Hes mocking and condemning his own attachment to the Hollywood machine and popular acclaim when in fact he wants to make great art with a moral center and knows he's capable of it. (This famously independent and acclaimed director made both the great, classic "Short Cuts" based on the brilliant short stories of Raymond Carver, and the utterly commercial "Popeye"). He's also taking a sad look at a society where there is no real justice. So yes, he's the director, but his heart is with the police. He's condemning himself.

User avatar
blackg
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1192
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 1586

Re: Film and television discussion thread

Post by blackg » 5 months ago

yettee wrote:
5 months ago
I've seen the Player several times. I will admit that I love it and see it as an all-time great movie, and it's known as one. Your interpretation is insightful, as was its deconstruction in that article. Actually, I don't disagree with anything you wrote or most of the article (other than not liking it :D ). However I see one aspect of it differently and I guess that's crucial. I don't think Altman was mocking the audience. Or rather, he was, but he was including himself in the group to be mocked, rather than himself being strictly a mocker. For me he is saying, we who engage in this shallow entertainment which is popular culture, both as audience and creators, are shallow hypocrites for pretending that we are creating/enjoying something great, when it's all just garbage. We produce the garbage without a shred of real art or noble intent, and the audience eats it. It's made clear that virtually every artist in the movie is creating their art for money and fame rather than for arts sake.

However, there is in fact a center of morality in the movie, people who are not fooled by the Hollywood tricks (as Altman sees it) and who are not hypnotised by it, and who are "real" people who express real human emotion: the police. Whoopi Goldberg and Lyle Lovett consistently do everything they can to bring the murderer (who is himself a garbage producer) down. They mock him, are irritated and infuriated by him, and at the end, when he manages to manipulate his way out of trouble, they are frustrated and sad and stare at him angrily. At the end of the movie when we hear the directors voice, I dont think its to mock the audience, but rather to condemn himself: he's not a sympathetic figure and we are not meant to like him, identify with him or agree with him. He (and the main character) have escaped justice, but they are to be scorned, not admired, because its clear that they have, in fact, escaped justice. So... without the inclusion of the police as the center of moral gravity in the film, and their evident, very real, human emotions and frustrations over not being able to bring the protagonist to justice, I think I'd share some of your queasy feeling. But taking the police into account, I dont think the audience is being mocked at all. Hes mocking and condemning his own attachment to the Hollywood machine and popular acclaim when in fact he wants to make great art with a moral center and knows he's capable of it. (This famously independent and acclaimed director made both the great, classic "Short Cuts" based on the brilliant short stories of Raymond Carver, and the utterly commercial "Popeye"). He's also taking a sad look at a society where there is no real justice. So yes, he's the director, but his heart is with the police. He's condemning himself.
This is why I appreciate your take on things.
marry me, Kaitlin

User avatar
Arjen
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 842
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 1385
Norwood: NW5
Regimen: Shaving

Re: Film and television discussion thread

Post by Arjen » 4 months ago

I've finished the first two episodes of "You" on Netflix. Now they made me cringe, because the main character has aspects to him that @Admin pointed out in relation to me. Watching how that smart, eloquent, observant (and good looking by the way) guy thinks that only he truly gets the girl he pursues (and, well, stalks) made me cringe, even though I'm honestly far from his sense of entitlement and delusion. But it helps me understand better how it can come across when I write stuff like "how lame other people's thoughts and conversations are" - and it's not flattering.

User avatar
blackg
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1192
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 1586

Re: Film and television discussion thread

Post by blackg » 4 months ago

JeanLucBB wrote:
4 months ago
" You have actually argued that he cannot be a great filmmakers on the basis that he has made films that are not great. "

I agree with what you're saying but its different to my overall thought that I was trying to convey, to elaborate he doesn't tend to be held as the "greatest" because aesthetically and thematically his films are so different over the past two decades (and often in distinct periods) so most critics tend to gravitate towards specific examples rather than his filmography as a whole. Also specific films are outright hated which is rare for other major critical darlings and a reasonably large number think he is a bore, overrated, overly simplistic in terms of ideas, or just cold and inhuman. I don't agree with any of those on the whole, but he doesn't have mass appeal even in critical circles because his films have a tendency to provoke those reactions. Also in saying all the above this I'm only giving possible explanation for why he's not considered a choice for number one by a majority in critical circles rather than arguing this as a reason why he isn't, separate also to my personal thoughts on him as a director in which I know its not a valid argument that hes made some blunders. He is widely considered a great and likely to be mentioned in a top 5 by many but a minority would likely place him at the top and even many serious critics loathe or are indifferent to him on the whole.

"r. Perhaps I overstretched by ranking him that high, but from speaking with other film snobs he is always in the conversation as among the very best. "

This made me laugh, its often the same case from who I talk to in terms of noob-level uni students who haven't actually seen that much arthouse cinema nor have they researched or studied it in depth. Lars Von Trier and Paul Thomas Anderson being the other two that are consistently mentioned by people who are in the same boat of not being particularly knowledgeable about cinema, but are happy to flaunt the cinephile/film snob title. Obviously that's not an argument against their work because both personally and critically they are considered top-tier, but just as an observation people with broader horizons tend to go for more obscure choices (but do mention these others, while often repeating what I've just said about them being overly mentioned by people who aren't knowledgeable). Also the lesser knowledgeable cinephiles ALWAYS mention Amour which is hilarious, although it is a great film. The more esoteric or emotionally explosive/shocking films tend to do the best in critic and serious cinephile circles: Cache (his most critically successful over the years), The White Ribbon, The Piano Teacher (maybe my favourite) and Code Unknown. Amour being more straightforward and having won the Palme D'or makes it more popular among noobies who don't feel secure in offering greatest praise to something like Cache but want to be part of the herd regardless.


I also agree that in terms of filmmaking there is virtually no discernible Jewish influence beyond their numbers in the population, but there certainly is in banking and news media for example both of which have a hugely more important influence on peoples lives. I don't think there are any Jewish filmakers in my top 20, and Spielberg is the only one I can think of that might be in critical circles and in terms of box office, although he's not seen at the very top echelon of directors among most critics to be honest.
Will you wankers stop arguing about your pretentious wanker films that you can barely even sit through.
marry me, Kaitlin

User avatar
JLBB
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 465
Joined: 10 months ago
Reputation: 971
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: 0.25mg Finasteride

Re: Film and television discussion thread

Post by JLBB » 4 months ago

blackg wrote:
4 months ago
Will you wankers stop arguing about your pretentious wanker films that you can barely even sit through.
Stfu, who do you think are good directors? What are your favourite films? Paul Thomas Anderson has broad appeal throughout most of his filmography to the average educated person interested in the art and that is open minded, even Von Trier and Haneke have certain films that likely would. I don’t see how the less esoteric and more emotionally intense films like Breaking the Waves or The Piano Teacher could specifically be *boring* to any cultured human being that doesn’t have ADD, even if they don’t find them particularly pleasurable to watch.

Go watch some retarded superhero hogshite designed in corporate boardrooms to appeal to brainwashed, low IQ swines that they laugh at for their stupidity.
Last edited by Admin 4 months ago, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Deleted stfu from the word replacer ;)

User avatar
blackg
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1192
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 1586

Re: Film and television discussion thread

Post by blackg » 4 months ago

JeanLucBB wrote:
4 months ago
Stfu, who do you think are good directors? What are your favourite films? Paul Thomas Anderson has broad appeal throughout most of his filmography to the average educated person interested in the art and that is open minded, even Von Trier and Haneke have certain films that likely would. I don’t see how the less esoteric and more emotionally intense films like Breaking the Waves or The Piano Teacher could specifically be *boring* to any cultured human being that doesn’t have ADD, even if they don’t find them particularly pleasurable to watch.

Go watch some retarded superhero hogshite designed in corporate boardrooms to appeal to brainwashed, low IQ swines that they laugh at for their stupidity.
I have a few films that I consider classics but I don't wear the names of obscure arthouse directors on my sleeve to form part of my esoteric identity.
Name dropping certain directors and films is mostly a pretentious exercise and I find this practice to be more about the person doing it than it is about the art itself.

As I said, you guys probably struggle to watch these wanker films from start to finish without being bored shitless.
Last edited by blackg 4 months ago, edited 2 times in total.
marry me, Kaitlin

User avatar
JLBB
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 465
Joined: 10 months ago
Reputation: 971
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: 0.25mg Finasteride

Re: Film and television discussion thread

Post by JLBB » 4 months ago

blackg wrote:
4 months ago
I have a few films that I consider classics but I don't wear the names of obscure arthouse directors on my sleeve like some part of my esoteric identity.
Name dropping certain directors and films is mostly a pretentious exercise and I find this practice to be more about the person doing than it is about the art itself.

As I said, you guys probably struggle to watch these wanker films from start to finish without being bored shitless.
It’s only considered pretentious to mention arthouse/nonmainstream film-makers by those who are uneducated on film. For those who aren’t uncultured swine, it’s just normal and no two thoughts are given. It’s a lie that I’m bored shitless by them, I’m bored shitless by Hollywood blockbusters which are made for dumb fuck children but low iq adults (majority of the population) still flock to.

80086ED0-1FF2-4E97-BFA2-A50DE19A7376.jpeg
80086ED0-1FF2-4E97-BFA2-A50DE19A7376.jpeg (94.94 KiB) Viewed 741 times
BC28010F-C8C5-4797-BBA0-8C2F2807CF79.jpeg
BC28010F-C8C5-4797-BBA0-8C2F2807CF79.jpeg (69.67 KiB) Viewed 741 times
5F7AE39B-A21D-49B0-8FDE-22B3B2CAF042.jpeg
5F7AE39B-A21D-49B0-8FDE-22B3B2CAF042.jpeg (41.18 KiB) Viewed 741 times
5317B396-D0B4-424C-B0D0-543D1A58472F.jpeg
5317B396-D0B4-424C-B0D0-543D1A58472F.jpeg (79.72 KiB) Viewed 741 times

Is this girl pretentious and just trying to impress me? Why is it so hard to believe that some people like films that are more than something made for the low iq, ADD, corporate boardroom produced garbage for those with the emotional intelligence of a potato?

What are these classics of yours in particular?
Last edited by JLBB 4 months ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1590
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3489
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: - 5% Minoxidil once a day and Adenosin shampoo
- Discontinued due to lack of results: Stemoxydine and dermarolling
Location: Belgium
Age: 29
Contact:

Re: Film and television discussion thread

Post by Admin » 4 months ago

blackg wrote:
4 months ago
I have a few films that I consider classics but I don't wear the names of obscure arthouse directors on my sleeve like some part of my esoteric identity.
Name dropping certain directors and films is mostly a pretentious exercise and I find this practice to be more about the person doing than it is about the art itself.

As I said, you guys probably struggle to watch these wanker films from start to finish without being bored shitless.
It is often a matter of taste but sometimes the postmodern BS director manage to fool themselves and its self-satisfied audience. Examples: Moonlight, Moonrise Kingdom, The Player, The Big Lebowski (heresy!), etc.

Some movies are just masturbatory nonsense designed to trick you, it's all nice and will make some arrogant indie fan cum in their pants, but ultimately those pieces of art fail to fulfill one of the most fundamental aspects of art that will deeply touch people of all generations and backgrounds: It has to be true, true at every single level.

Movies that try to play tricks that their director think is smart, edgy or "good because it's never been done before" will be forgotten and instantly despised by the average viewer, me included. Part of the arthouse scene absolutely deserve the harsh criticism it gets.

That said, I don't believe Breaking the Waves and Amour fall into that category. I really liked those movies. And I would never shit on the Marvel cinematic universe either. I love both genres. Movies like Captain America Civil War are quite complex and yes, true, in the sense that they depict human nature quite accurately.

Marvel movies and even some of the DC universe (Wonder Woman for example) bring me a lot of enjoyment. It's good that they care about making money because in some sense, they can't go wrong with it. What I hate is when they not so subtly insert postmodern neomarxist propaganda into those movies. It takes you out of them instantly, because it's not true.

For example, in Deadpool 2, the fat kid who casually says "why aren't there any plus-size superheroes?". The same happened for me in an overall great movie by Spike Lee: BlacKKKlansman. He just had to do it: compare Donald Trump to the former KKK leader David Duke. The scene simply made me sick. "Someone like David Duke could become President of the United Sates someday!" Yeah yeah because lifelong Democrat Donald Trump is just like a former leader of the KKK.

Anyway, it's often hard to avoid those postmodern arthouse movies because the large base of arrogant fans will create a circlejerk bubble and propel those movies at a high rating they clearly don't deserve. And guess what, most people will avoid all arthouse movies (even though some of them are excellent) so that rating will barely be challenged. In my opinion, it's no different than Indian and Turkish people rating all movies produced in their countries 10/10.

User avatar
JLBB
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 465
Joined: 10 months ago
Reputation: 971
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: 0.25mg Finasteride

Re: Film and television discussion thread

Post by JLBB » 4 months ago

yettee wrote:
5 months ago
I've seen the Player several times. I will admit that I love it and see it as an all-time great movie, and it's known as one. Your interpretation is insightful, as was its deconstruction in that article. Actually, I don't disagree with anything you wrote or most of the article (other than not liking it :D ). However I see one aspect of it differently and I guess that's crucial. I don't think Altman was mocking the audience. Or rather, he was, but he was including himself in the group to be mocked, rather than himself being strictly a mocker. For me he is saying, we who engage in this shallow entertainment which is popular culture, both as audience and creators, are shallow hypocrites for pretending that we are creating/enjoying something great, when it's all just garbage. We produce the garbage without a shred of real art or noble intent, and the audience eats it. It's made clear that virtually every artist in the movie is creating their art for money and fame rather than for arts sake.

However, there is in fact a center of morality in the movie, people who are not fooled by the Hollywood tricks (as Altman sees it) and who are not hypnotised by it, and who are "real" people who express real human emotion: the police. Whoopi Goldberg and Lyle Lovett consistently do everything they can to bring the murderer (who is himself a garbage producer) down. They mock him, are irritated and infuriated by him, and at the end, when he manages to manipulate his way out of trouble, they are frustrated and sad and stare at him angrily. At the end of the movie when we hear the directors voice, I dont think its to mock the audience, but rather to condemn himself: he's not a sympathetic figure and we are not meant to like him, identify with him or agree with him. He (and the main character) have escaped justice, but they are to be scorned, not admired, because its clear that they have, in fact, escaped justice. So... without the inclusion of the police as the center of moral gravity in the film, and their evident, very real, human emotions and frustrations over not being able to bring the protagonist to justice, I think I'd share some of your queasy feeling. But taking the police into account, I dont think the audience is being mocked at all. Hes mocking and condemning his own attachment to the Hollywood machine and popular acclaim when in fact he wants to make great art with a moral center and knows he's capable of it. (This famously independent and acclaimed director made both the great, classic "Short Cuts" based on the brilliant short stories of Raymond Carver, and the utterly commercial "Popeye"). He's also taking a sad look at a society where there is no real justice. So yes, he's the director, but his heart is with the police. He's condemning himself.
Good analysis, also Short Cuts makes me outright jizz. Although mentioning this sort of thing again The Player is not considered an all time great film, at least in comparison to Nashville (in my opinion legitimately a top 20 and critically almost rated as highly) nor Short Cuts or McCabe for Altman’s works. Probably because it lacks the emotional, humanist and transcendent core of something like Nashville and is more focused on ideas and itself as a work of art, although it it certainly has exhibits a moral centre even if it is one that talks down against commoditisation of art and audiences to some degree, but not the audience of this particular film itself.

The problem with people who are not educated in postmodern or simply anti/non-realist is rather than experiencing an artwork or looking for things to enjoy they go on the offensive and assume they are being talked down to and must hit back. Cinema is far more akin to eating a meal than to say politics and policy, enjoying a work of postmodernism or with postmodern elements doesn’t suddenly mean you have to start saying that gender identity is a social construct. One is about personal pleasure and experience, the other effects people’s lives.

User avatar
blackg
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1192
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 1586

Re: Film and television discussion thread

Post by blackg » 4 months ago

JeanLucBB wrote:
4 months ago
What are these classics of yours in particular?
Okay, some of my all time favorite films:

#1, Jaws 3... in 3D!!! (1983)

It's the one where Jaws, or the son of, follows the Brody family to the Caribbean on their family vacation. Jaws soon starts causing havoc amongst the local population and even bites the leg off of Ellen Brody as she swims the warm blue waters.
Great scene!
He kills a few people as well.


#2, Attack of the Drones (2002)

Classic story telling drama and suitable for all ages but especially popular with males of all ages as it starred Natalie Portman dressed in a sexy tight white action suit.
But the best part? Millions of pre-programmed drones attacking everything in their path. Brilliant!
The story did get a bit complicated towards the end but it didn't matter.
Not with Natalie Portman and then all those drones causing complete chaos!


#3, Hebie Fully Loaded (2005)

This one was a real heart warmer, and if I had kids at the time of this film's release then I would have definitely taken them to see this flick.
I mean, who doesn’t love a story about a cute looking sentient German made car?

Very touching the relationship this car formed with the main protagonist.
Speaking of whom.. this film starred Lindsay Lohan (again good for a heterosexual male audience) and was shot in Southern California, so the cinematography was a standout.

You can't top these films in my eyes and no amount of pretentious dinner party conversations can convince me otherwise.
marry me, Kaitlin

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1590
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3489
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: - 5% Minoxidil once a day and Adenosin shampoo
- Discontinued due to lack of results: Stemoxydine and dermarolling
Location: Belgium
Age: 29
Contact:

Re: Film and television discussion thread

Post by Admin » 4 months ago

JeanLucBB wrote:
4 months ago
The problem with people who are not educated in postmodern or simply anti/non-realist is rather than experiencing an artwork or looking for things to enjoy they go on the offensive and assume they are being talked down to and must hit back.
That's exactly how postmodern art makes me feel and I've had the chance to receive a prime education in postmodern literature at my university. So it's not that I don't understand what the postmodern artists are going for, the problem is that I understand it perfectly, and these are the reactions it provokes in me:

Disgust, anxiety, depression, anger and yes, violence, an intense desire to fight back, to even lose my mind over it. It's all fine to consider it an exercise but my experience as someone extremely open to new ideas and also extremely neurotic, it can do you in during the times of your life when you'll be too weak to compartmentalize it so to speak.

For me it was during my complete breakdown after getting my male pattern baldness diagnosis. I got my diagnosis and a couple of months later, I had to read all those postmodern books to pass an exam. It nearly killed me and I'm not mincing my word. At a point even went to a psychiatrist who actually liked those books, and yeah, I had to mention them during therapy, and even she said that someone in my current mental state shouldn't read those books, which is saying a lot.

Well tough luck, I had to to pass my year. Yeah you could say I'm weak for letting it get to me but that's just what it does to you, and today, I still experience intense anger when someone throws postmodern ideas at me as if they were valid, and if they were meant to produce anything else but chaos and violence. Those ideas can only exist and seem (that's the keyword here) valid when you divorce them from the whole, from grand narratives, from the truth, because there is such thing.

It all came together for me when I discovered Jordan Peterson. I was not crazy and what had happened to me was not unheard of. You want to explore postmodern ideas as an intellectual exercise, by all means, go ahead, but don't try to pretend that there is any value to it outside of that, and I certainly wouldn't mock people for feeling offended by it, they have every right to be, and to me, it shows that they're human. It's the people who don't feel this way about postmodernism that I'd be weary about.

Oh God, I have Short Cuts on my list, and it's 3 hours long! Ah well, we'll see.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Xexos and 3 guests