Posts by silentviper19

Joseph Cox said:👍 At this point, Political Correctness is just merging with outright censorship and verbal delinquency. We need a massive overhaul.
George Carlin put it perfectly:

George Carlin is an absolute legend.👍

Everything needs a massive overhaul, honestly. But there’s this other headache that’s been brewing because of Political Correctness, too. It’s gotten to the point where the loudest voices fighting for free speech these days are actually just various fascists. So now, you have perfectly normal people getting lumped in with those extremists and suffering the same backlash, simply because their stance happens to overlap with theirs—even though their actual motives and starting points couldn't be more different. It's such a mess.

Here’s an example:
It’s funny, isn't it? You try to point out some issues with Islam—just a regular critique, mind you—and suddenly, everyone is labeling you an Islamophobe. It happens so fast! And then, before you can even blink, they go ahead and toss you right into the same bucket as those actual fascists who truly despise Muslims as human beings. It's like you can't even have a nuanced conversation without getting lumped in with the extremists. I remember talking about this over coffee near Starbucks the other day, and it's just wild how people jump to conclusions these days. One minute you're discussing theology or social policy, and the next, you're being treated like a monster. It's all very intense!
It’s funny, isn't it? You look at one side of the aisle, and these self-proclaimed champions of Political Correctness are all over the place attacking white fascists left and right. But then, you flip the script, and suddenly they’re playing defense for Islamo-fascists by basically making it illegal to even voice a critique of the religion. It’s wild! Honestly, they’re just walking straight into a trap. They’re practically bundling themselves up in a basket right next to those Islamo-fascists. And you know what happens next? They’re just handing everything on a silver platter to the conservatives. It makes it so easy for them to come out swinging with logic that totally shuts the conversation down—like, "Oh, so you're calling me a fascist, but you're busy shielding Islamo-fascists?" Boom. Argument over. It's like watching a slow-motion car crash where everyone thinks they're driving perfectly fine until the impact.

Honestly, this whole thing is just pure madness. It’s like one big, endless, crazy loop that just keeps spinning around and around.

So, I was just sitting here thinking—and you know how my mind wanders sometimes—about how incredibly easy it would be for us to end up having to change the word "German" because of all this Political Correctness going around. It’s funny, right? Like, imagine if we suddenly decided it wasn't okay to call an entire nation by one label because we didn't want to lump everyone together or imply some kind of collective handicap. It feels like we're heading toward a world where you can't even name a group without someone jumping in to say, "Wait, that's not inclusive enough!" or "You're grouping too many different people into one bucket!" It's wild to think about, but honestly, it's probably just around the corner.

It reminds me of that whole situation over in Greece where the locals on the island of Lesbos were actually pushing to get that specific label for women removed from the legal books. I mean, can you blame them? They were basically saying, "Hey, why should our entire home be used as a synonym for this lifestyle when nobody even asked us if we wanted that association?" It’s like, they didn't sign up for that! And the funny thing—or maybe the ironic part, depending on how you look at it—is that every single year, thousands of couples travel there specifically to hold their weddings right on those shores. It's a bit of a wild loop, isn't it? Just a strange little cycle of identity and tourism.
Of course, those Lesbos women's groups jumped on it immediately, screaming "homophobia" at the top of their lungs. Honestly, it’s always the same story with them. But you know what? One Greek guy actually stepped up and spoke the Truth about the whole thing. He hit the nail right on the head.
So, he’s saying—just imagine for a second—what if we started calling every single serial killer on the planet a Londoner just because Jack the Ripper was the first famous one out of London? It's kind of wild when you think about it that way, right? Like, totally makes no sense!
Just imagine if we saw a headline like this in the papers today: "So, I was just reading the news, and man, things are getting pretty wild out there in Texas. They found twelve women dead—just absolutely devastating. And honestly? It’s looking like it might be the work of a Londoner. So, hey, dear neighbors, please, please stay inside tonight. Seriously, don't go wandering around out there; you never know when a Londoner might be lurking in the shadows. Better safe than sorry!".😁

Oh, and I almost forgot! I was just thinking about this—way back, like twenty years ago, someone actually had this wild idea to rename that famous getaway spot, Coney Island, and call it Ellis Island instead. Just one of those random things that pops into your head, you know?😁

Political Correctness originally popped up to help clean up the public square in America and Europe by pushing back against the blatant racism and sexism that used to be everywhere. The idea was basically to shut down those old-school bigots the second they started spewing their nonsense.

But man, things really spiraled out of control. Now, it feels like people use it as a way to muzzle anyone who dares to voice an opinion that actually has nothing to do with sexism or racism at its core. It’s become this tool to silence anyone who doesn't toe the line.

Look, we all know deep down that context and intention are everything. But the media, your political rivals, and everyone else? They ignore that on purpose. Because, let's face it, there isn't a faster way to shut someone down than just slapping the label of "racist" or "sexist" on them. Boom, conversation over.

Personally, what really grinds my gears—and I say this with all due respect to how sensitive things have gotten—is how religion gets lumped in with nationality, race, or gender. It just doesn't make sense! Everyone knows you aren't born with a religion; it's something you choose and can change whenever you want. It's totally different from the other stuff.
Now, a nation might be a social construct, sure, but it isn't inherently "wrong" or "immoral." Usually, when people criticize a country, they are actually just picking apart the ideologies that came out of it.

Religion itself is an ideology. Period. So, it should be treated just like any other belief system. Anything that promotes a specific set of morals or social rules deserves to be scrutinized and debated.

You can see how ridiculous this whole PC craze has become regarding religion when you look at the whole "Islamophobia" debate. Nowadays, if you offer even a tiny bit of criticism toward Islam, people treat it like you're attacking the people themselves. It's gone so far that some folks act like anyone questioning Islamic doctrine must be mentally unstable or something. It's wild.

And honestly, if we’re going to follow that logic to its absurd conclusion, then we should have terms for everything, right? Christianophobia, paganismophobia, communismophobia, fascismophobia, atheismophobia... you get the idea. Anyone can feel insulted because someone else holds a view that contradicts their own. And if you think your views are the absolute, ultimate truth, then any disagreement feels like a personal attack.

At the end of the day, you can't fix how people view Political Correctness through news anchors or politicians. That kind of understanding has to start at home and in the classroom. Like I said before, it all comes down to understanding context and seeing the good intentions behind what people say. We need to teach kids how to read between the lines, and that starts with family and school.

Raymond Peterson81 said:Do you generally feel like religions prevent peaceful coexistence? And how much of that is just human laziness—you know, the refusal to actually sit down and learn or read? Personally, I think I could live side-by-side with the most devout Muslim imaginable if he were the type of person who actively seeks knowledge, shares what he learns, and uses his faith to understand himself rather than just preaching at everyone else. We’d just agree to disagree and move on with our lives.

The real issue arises when you have the power to force some idiot to accept your worldview. Honestly, I don't think religion itself is the culprit here—though, then again, maybe the problem lies with me and my own way of thinking. Suggesting we just "abolish or ban religion" is totally irrational. It's like people eating burgers and ice cream and getting overweight—should we just ban burgers and ice cream to end obesity? Through education, you can create a world where people enjoy their burgers but stay fit; it's about balance. Prohibitions aren't constructive in the long run.

For those individuals who claimed my previous example wasn't good enough—well, get ready, because I love coming up with these, and here is another one, arguably even worse than the last;

I built a house and designed the living room exactly how I dreamed it. The entire floor is covered by this plush, ten-inch deep shag carpet that you sink into when you walk—and naturally, there is absolutely no way anyone is walking on it with shoes; slippers only.

I keep guest slippers right at the entrance. Whoever visits takes off their shoes and puts on the slippers. Then, one day, a neighbor stops by and starts heading toward the living room still wearing his outdoor shoes. I tell him, "You can't wear shoes in here, please put on some slippers."

And he says, "I don't believe in the concept of taking off shoes; it's completely foreign to me, I'm not doing it."

Is it "multiculturalism" if I let him stomp all over my expensive carpet with his dirty shoes? Or is it "multiculturalism" if I just lay down a small patch of laminate flooring in my living room specifically for him?

🙂

Just because someone's culture dictates they stay shod at all times doesn't mean they won't take their shoes off when visiting you.

But, if that person follows a religious tradition where, for God's sake, it is written that they must remain shod constantly, then yeah, if I were in your shoes, I'd probably kick them out on the spot because they're showing zero respect.

In my house, nobody even takes their shoes off, and I don't have carpets anywhere except the bedroom.
So, I don't really strip down to socks either, mostly because I wouldn't want someone spreading "foot odors" all over my place. I only take my shoes off if the host asks or if my boots are just straight-up covered in mud.😁

Check out this example of "multiculturalism."

Jewish and Muslim communities practice circumcision, and nobody stops them. But if you and I belonged to some religion that required us to tear off a child's ear or pluck out their fingernails as part of a ritual, we'd probably end up in prison or a psych ward, and the state would take our kids away in a heartbeat.

Can you imagine this crap!!🙄

Now, just picture this: we organize a massive event in honor of our god (let's call him Taylor Swift) and collectively pluck children's fingernails, hand out gifts, and then tuck some cash under their pillows!!😁

By its very nature, any democratic society is inherently multicultural. It’s just how it works—you have individuals making up the fabric of that society, and those people are free to do as they please within the boundaries of the law and the state.

But here’s where things get messy. A real issue crops up when someone living within that multicultural mix actually harbors hatred for the very society and the government that guarantees freedoms for everyone—including themselves. What I mean is, the friction comes from those who soak up all the perks of a free society while simultaneously despising it, along with anyone else who doesn't fit their mold. If they believe their "divine will" dictates that this kind of society needs to be torn down because it clashes with their specific ideology or religion... well, that's a problem.

Basically, you can't build a truly multicultural society if you're dealing with all these undemocratic worldviews. I'm talking about fascism, racism, communism, Islam, and even Christianity.

It's almost like they were all born from the same crazy mother; at the end of the day, they're all siblings. There isn't much of a fundamental difference between them, really. They just wear different packaging or different uniforms, but the goal remains the same: trying to force a dictatorship or total conformity by killing and suppressing others in the name of some god, nation, or race.

But let's be real for a second—the biggest headache facing the world today is Islam. To me, it feels like an aggressive offshoot of Judaism and Christianity that has morphed into this incredibly nasty, dogmatic ideology. Its whole aim, as the doctrine itself states, is to establish an Islamic state governed by Islamic law, viewing everyone else as morally or spiritually inferior until they convert.

There’s going to be a whole lot more of them coming down the line for a long time, and since the European Union isn't exactly rolling out the red carpet, they’re just going to stay stuck right here in Mexico instead.

Now, I don't know exactly how many will end up staying—that's the big question mark, really—but I doubt the numbers will be small enough to actually solve our issues. And let's be honest about those issues: we're looking at a clash of deep-seated religious fanaticism meeting that stubborn, old-school radicalism from the Mexican nationalists. It's a messy mix.

At the end of the day, you can bet the far-right groups are going to jump all over this refugee situation. They'll use it to stir the pot, which honestly just makes life miserable for everyone involved, both them and us.

Michael Gonzalez77 said:🙂 "I am not" an atheist, a theist, or anything else you could possibly throw at me. Those kinds of labels and identities simply don't interest me.

On the flip side, your "atheism" is just a byproduct of the psychological cage you're living in—the very thing causing you daily internal conflict. That's what I'm talking about.

It doesn't matter how someone declares themselves. Identity is just the accumulation of what's inside a person and the weight they give to a self-constructed, false world of ideas. Once you start identifying with those ideas—even if you create a specific agenda through some ideology—you end up stuck in a stagnant life.

The whole idea of drawing "determinism" from different places is trivial because the core issue remains the same. Whether you call yourself an atheist or a theist, whether it's Jack or Mark—when you're dealing with an identity that contributes nothing to personal growth and can't even be understood without a genuine effort toward self-knowledge, it's a waste of energy. People cling to these things because they view any challenge to their label as a threat to their very being. Even if that isn't the intention, people need to set things straight. Unfortunately, most people's intellect just circles around what they "see" or what they've heard exists, even if they haven't actually experienced it. They try to perceive the world through the narrow lens of the intellect, but the intellect isn't the part of intelligence that truly perceives reality. It's just a tiny fraction of the total intelligence that most of humanity hasn't even touched yet. All of this is just noise.

Man, you're acting like you're headed for Mount Everest or Tibet or something! What are you even looking for down here on Earth? Just staring at these empty fantasies sold by science, progress, and technology? It's all just colorful illusions, really. None of it helps with the one big thing you're constantly banging on about—this famous "self-knowledge." That term is always so vague because it's purely subjective, anyway. Not to mention there's zero scientific proof that this "self-knowledge" even exists, let alone that anyone should be spending their life chasing it.

Michael Gonzalez77 said:An atheist—specifically one acting as a materialist—is still essentially someone clinging to a belief system. Both sides fall into the trap of mental determinism; they’re just pulling from different wells. It's all legitimate, sure, but it's a step backward for anyone trying to develop true spiritual freedom. Real freedom shouldn't be tied to our physical or mental baggage, yet we treat these internal constructs as absolute reality simply because we pour so much energy into maintaining this illusory world of impressions. At the end of the day, you don't have to be an atheist or a theist to be trapped in a repetitive psychological loop. We get stuck in these mental habits and "life protocols" that drive a constant cycle of craving and avoidance—essentially a never-ending chase to swap pain for pleasure. Regardless of what someone believes or their specific theories, if their mind is conditioned into a circular loop that's already strained their nervous system, their ability to express their true spirit is going to be severely limited.

Man, the way you spin things is wild. It honestly makes me wonder how people who are clearly smart can wade through such shallow streams of ignorance and hypocrisy.

You're an atheist and a materialist just like me, yet somehow you claim to have some "spiritual energy" that I lack because I'm being principled while you aren't. Because, in my book, either all miracles and spiritual experiences are real, or none of them are.

And you say we pull our determinism from different sources?? That's just not right.
You're pulling from both, whereas I stick to just one. See, you don't believe in Santa Claus, and you definitely don't think Zeus sent spiritual energy to Milan via tarot cards, but I bet you still believe in the Resurrection.

Gerald Hill said:

Joseph Bailey41 As I have noted before, it appears that...
If I am operating under the assumption that God does not exist, why should it matter to me whether His likeness resembles a human being or a disco ball?🤔

One really ought to understand exactly what they are denying. When I set out to deny a legend like a demon, I have a very specific image in my mind: a creature with the face of an old woman, jagged iron teeth, and massive claws, riding a person through the countryside all night long. Ultimately, there is no single, universal definition of God; people experience Him in vastly different ways.

🤦

See, he isn't really denying something that actually exists. He’s just rejecting what *other* people claim is out there. That's why he can't even wrap his head around the version of God he's supposedly arguing against. It’s a bit of a loop, isn't it?

I mean, honestly, if you're picturing some imaginary creature in your mind just so you can deny it, that’s either pretty silly or you might need to see a doctor.

Are you denying The Flying Dutchman too?? Because that guy is just as much a part of our legends as any vampire or forest spirit. It makes me wonder how you're even visualizing him, since you'd need an image to deny in the first place, according to your own logic.

Anthony Taylor393 said:Writing this as an agnostic who’s pretty fed up with a certain mindset I see popping up among some of our atheist and agnostic circles (specifically one group over on Meta) which basically claims we shouldn't show "any intellectual tolerance toward believers."

Personally, I find that whole vibe totally repellant. I get where they're coming from when they're tearing into hardline religious fundamentalists, but why does everything have to be viewed through such a negative lens? Why can't we admit that faith has actually inspired people to create, explore the world, produce timeless art, and even drive scientific breakthroughs?
I mean, look at Gregor Mendel—the guy was a humble priest and the literal father of modern genetics. He's just one in a long line of people we should probably feel embarrassed by, apparently, just because they dared to flirt with the idea of something beyond this world.

Honestly, the whole "militant atheism is the only way" thing? It gives me the creeps.

See, I don't have any intellectual tolerance for believers either—especially those modern ones who act like they're totally rational and don't have a medieval mindset stuck in their heads. To me, that’s just pure cowardice and conformism disguised as being "reasonable." These "rational believers" are the worst because they routinely refuse to show any intellectual tolerance toward shamans or fortune tellers, even though, at their core, those things are fundamentally similar to Christianity or Islam.

The real issue is that believers today want us to respect their faith just because they claim it inspired some great creators in the past.
Man, I’ve heard that argument so many times it makes me feel sick.
They’ll say Islam is responsible for mathematics or astronomy, and almost every Muslim believes that without Islam, none of that would exist.
Or they’ll say Isaac Newton was inspired by God since he was a clergyman, so we basically owe his laws of physics to Christianity and Christians.

But what does "inspired by God" even mean when you're creating something? For all we know, someone could have been inspired by a creator or even Santa Claus, but nobody mentions that for some "weird reason." People won't bring it up because they'd look like fools, mostly due to that lack of intellectual tolerance regarding "imaginary" inspirations that aren't Christian, Islamic, or part of some other major religion—not just from the religious folks, but from the atheists too.

Oh, so they were inspired by the Christian God for their art? Like they had any other choice back then!
During the Renaissance, people didn't really conceive of anything else besides the religious God to draw inspiration from. And even if they did, if they spoke up about it, they would have been burned at the stake right along with their artwork, which, let's face it, happened quite often.

Since Neoplatonism is credited with elevating monotheism to a higher "intellectual" level, and since Plato—acting as an ancient creationist—believed in Apollo and the crew on Olympus, then maybe it's time for Jews, Christians, and Muslims to sacrifice a lamb to Apollo. Just as a little thank-you, since he supposedly inspired Plato's philosophy, which paved the way for monotheism in the first place.

Anyone claiming that militant atheism is the only path is either a total fool or just using it as a religious talking point to throw at atheists when they run out of actual arguments in a debate.

hollowpuma762 said:They gotta run side by side, in total harmony.

Now, biology tells us pretty clearly that once someone passes away, that’s it—game over, no coming back. But if you look back about 2,000 years, there was this one guy who actually came back to life. And it wasn't just him, either; you've got Lazarus and so many others who were basically brought back by the sheer joy of witnessing that first miracle.

Where's the "harmony" in all that? We build our whole sense of spirituality on the idea that miracles are totally possible, yet science sits there insisting they aren't. It feels like a massive contradiction to me.

wiredraven82 said:I’m not making a mistake here—because I am speaking strictly in terms of cinema (since that is the subject of this PDF at hand)—so:

You’re getting the cinematic details wrong, even if you’ve actually got the history straight.

You’re right about that—I’m not disputing your point. But honestly, did you really expect them to obsess over specific Latin dialects from that era? Give me a break. You should be grateful they even bothered using official Latin at all, especially when you look at the track record of other "linguistically authentic" period pieces out there. 🙂

silentviper19 As I was saying:
Everyone can get behind the idea that Aramaic was the spoken tongue, but trying to reconstruct its exact nuances is a massive uphill battle—it would be like claiming we know precisely how ancient Germanic tribes spoke just because we have the records left behind by Cyril and Methodius.

If we’re going to follow that line of reasoning, then we wouldn't be able to claim that so many extinct languages have been "reconstructed"—but they have. They're dead, sure, but they aren't gone. We can bring them back enough to make sense of them—not perfectly, mind you, but sufficiently to grasp their structure. Take the Etruscan language, for example; unfortunately, we still haven't quite cracked the code on that one.

I could agree with you there—but let’s be realistic. During that specific window of time, maintaining stability in Judea was absolutely not in Rome's best interest from a purely pragmatic military standpoint. If you look at the sheer logistical nightmare a rebellion would have caused their legions, it makes sense. Besides, we all know exactly what happened to the Jews just a few decades after they decided to stage an uprising.

P.S.: I really hope that while we’re hashing this out, you understand my intention here—I am not bringing Jesus into this discussion at all. We are sticking strictly to the linguistic, archaeological, and historical facts. 🙂

👍

That sounds a bit harsh, and I'm sure that wasn't his intention. Even if we agree that the Romans in that era wouldn't have been speaking official Latin, you'll have to admit—both you and I would much rather hear something resembling the period than standard modern English.

No, I don't find that quasi-authentic Latin or quasi-authentic Aramaic any better, because they just aren't authentic. That hack Gibson just declared them authentic because he's banking on the audience having empty heads—and, of course, on the believers.

That’s why I much prefer that good old California accent used in the old classics where both Jesus and Dracula spoke; there isn't that fake pretension of authenticity that was pushed so hard for the Passion.

When it came out, I immediately heard people saying, "Wow, it was exactly like that in the movie! The film is just so incredibly authentic!".
Personally, I’d say that 60s film with the styrofoam sets and the standard American accent was more authentic than this one, because the very attempt to be authentic ended up costing him all authenticity. And don't even get me started on the interpretation of the story itself, which is just plain nasty.
Technically, it’s okay, but he stuck to that old rule where all the white actors play both Jesus and the apostles. Meanwhile, the Romans are portrayed as pure Western European whites, rather than some Greek, North American, or Middle Eastern face wearing a Roman uniform—Gibson didn't slip up there like he did with the Jew.

Now we just wait for the new Gibson film about Dracula, where everyone will be wailing in medieval Old English, and the audience will just soak up the "authenticity."😁

wiredraven82 said:Gibson’s *Passion of the Christ* is the gold standard—and there's a very simple reason for that: the sheer level of archaeological and linguistic authenticity. I’m not sitting here debating theology or whether Jesus was the Son of God; that’s not the point. My point is the grit and realism of the era itself—the way they handled the language, the clothing, the footwear, the weaponry... everything. As an archaeologist, I have massive respect for Gibson’s eye for detail, just as I do with his work on *Apocalypto*.

If he hadn't ruffled the feathers of the Jewish community, who knows where his career would be today. He might still be the undisputed king of historical epics, but instead, we've essentially been left with *Apocalypto*.

Sorry, but I think you're missing the mark on a few things here.

First off, it's just totally impossible to claim official Latin was the everyday tongue for soldiers and common folks. Even back then, Roman citizens were always speaking their own specific Latin dialects. And since the soldiers stationed over in places like Plestina were mostly coming from Crete, their speech would have been some sort of Latin-Crete dialect mixed in with Greek.

I can give you the win on Aramaic, but honestly, trying to reconstruct that language is a massive stretch. It would be like claiming we know exactly how ancient Slavic tribes spoke just because of how Cyril and Methodius recorded it. It's a bit of a leap, right?

What really bugs me about this whole narrative is that hidden, old-school Christian antisemitism bubbling under the surface. It makes it look like the Roman soldiers were basically just working for the Jewish kingdom, and like the Romans were merely bystanders in a Jewish state ruled by clerics in their own complex way. It's a weird vibe.

As for the clothing, sure, maybe, but we don't exactly have direct records or photos of what ancient Jews wore. We *do* know how the Romans dressed, though, so I'll give Gibson credit where it's due—he nailed that part.

At the end of the day, this whole idea of "linguistic authenticity" feels a bit silly to me. It feels more like a trick to dazzle the casual viewers and, of course, the religious crowd, just to make the movie feel more "authentic."

Honestly, I feel like the only way to make a decent movie about the Bible is to go the comedy route or maybe some kind of parody—black comedy or otherwise. Anything else just ends up feeling like straight-up, nasty propaganda.

I don't know, those types of films just feel gross to me. It’s a personal thing, I guess.

A perfect example of that nastiness I'm talking about? Definitely Gibson's Passion of the Christ.

rapidmaker77 said:Hold on, are you seriously suggesting that nearly four thousand psychiatrists voting to label homosexuality as a disorder makes them narrow-minded?
da je homosex. poremećaj zatucano 😲

And you think we can just vote our way to some grand "TRUTH" regarding
worldviews and personal beliefs—things we shouldn't be forced to follow under threat of being shut down?

Do you really believe that if someone views homosexuality as a disorder, they're just "old-fashioned," while you, by disagreeing, are somehow at the bleeding edge of humanity? 😲 😲

It’s wild to me how you don't see that there isn't such a thing as an objective truth when it comes to ideas that can't be "objectified" or decided by a majority vote.

If a group of psychiatrists voted saying God doesn't exist, would you go out there with a police baton or use your moderator mouse to delete anyone who dared to question that consensus regarding God or HUMAN IDEAS AND BELIEFS? 😲

Are you just lying to yourself and everyone else here, pulling things out of context and making up stories?

Of course they were narrow-minded. Honestly, a huge chunk of them weren't just closed-minded, they were hateful, fascists, racists, and just plain ignorant.
Back in the 70s, clinics were still blasting people with electroshock therapy for every little psychotic episode... I mean, do you honestly think a psychiatrist from Alabama or Arkansas was going to look at their profession with total objectivity, completely free from the influence of their surroundings or those crazy Christian fanatics of that era? No way, they weren't.

You think they started that vote just for fun? Not even close. It was the only way gay people could get even one official confirmation that they were healthy human beings and not "devils." It was about being able to come out of the closet for five minutes without getting jumped in an alley or actually landing a decent job they were qualified for.

This wasn't a vote on a scientific fact like 2+2=4 where people just weigh in; it was about stopping people from being labeled as "sick" when they aren't.
Imagine if the majority thought you were mentally ill because of your race, and if you dared to say otherwise, you got beaten up because they didn't like how your "illness" manifested.
So what are you supposed to do then, poor soul? Nothing else but try to work with professionals—with psychiatrists—to get an opinion on your specific case.
And then they tell you that you're perfectly healthy.
But then those Christians and others who think you're sick just say, "Oh, she just paid off her psychiatrist; they're still trying to destroy our world".

And finally, there's this desperate move where everyone has to weigh in and vote on whether you're sick or not.
Gay people weren't even happy about having to have people define them that way.
Actually, it was similar with racism; it used to be a sort of unofficial way for experts to state their views, which all countries accepted after WWII, until scientists across Europe and the USA reached a consensus through constant correspondence that a Black person's skull doesn't mean they are some inherently "evil" person incapable of being civilized.
So I'm asking you: do you think Hitler's racist scientists, who measured thousands of skulls across the globe for the sake of their "science" and ideology, were narrow-minded and evil? Or do you not think so??!!
Just answer me that, because you gave me that same shocked look when I said those who voted against gay people were narrow-minded.

Honestly, what you said about psychiatrists voting on whether God exists is just... wow. It’s so silly. I mean, comparing actual living, breathing people to some imaginary supernatural being? That feels pretty low and, frankly, just kind of dim-witted.

It’s just a pointless attempt at proving nothing.

See, it wasn't about some overly complicated mathematical formula like 2+2=4. It was actually about real human beings—people who, up until then, were being treated like outcasts or deviants by the entire government and society at large.

There had to be this massive push to get the psychiatric community to hold an official vote and basically say, "Hey, these people aren't sick." Back then, most folks were still pretty narrow-minded, so they needed the AP to step in and issue a formal statement through a vote. The idea was that if the experts spoke up, maybe it would nudge public opinion just enough to start seeing them as normal.
But honestly, looking at things now, it seems like we haven't really come that far.

Honestly, this movie has been sitting on my all-time favorites list for ages, and that’s saying something because I’m usually not even much of a fan when it comes to French cinema.

The whole bit with Aurora and her constant suicide plots? Just absolute genius. Such a brilliant touch.🙂

By the way, did you know the production design for Delicatessen was actually handled by our most legendary set designer, Miljen Krek Kljaković? He’s the mastermind behind the look of Laundry Service and so many other films out there, whether they're big blockbusters or those little indie gems you might have missed.

Since I'm from the States now, I guess I really should be criticizing a movie I haven't even seen yet, but honestly? I’ll just say everyone needs to check it out—myself included.

But, let me pivot for a second and talk about something else: the inevitable consequences this film is going to trigger.
From what I’ve heard, and what people have been telling me, the whole story revolves around these Mexican villains committing mass assaults against Canadian women, and then—get this—one of them actually falls for her attacker in this totally bizarre twist.

And since every Canadian out there, whether they've sat through the film or not, is convinced that what's on screen is the absolute truth (and yeah, I'm right there with them), I don't think the main, twisted plot point of the movie is ever going to happen in real life. I mean, the idea that Canadians could just fall in love, forgive, or find common ground with Mexicans? Yeah, no way.

I mean, seriously, where in the world can a victim live in the same house, the same city, or even the same country on equal footing with their tormentor and just... look at them every single day?!
In my opinion—actually, I know this for a fact—that kind of thing just doesn't exist. It's physically impossible.

So, this movie and the mindset it exposes really drive home the point that Canada has to break apart to keep these people separated forever. Because, like I said before: "Who can live under the same roof as their own executioner?"

Man, when I was a kid, that old version just stuck in my head as this absolute classic—super goofy in that perfect high school comedy kind of way. So, honestly? I’m pretty skeptical about this new one. Usually, remakes just fall flat, especially when you're trying to redo a comedy. Plus, you've got Zdravko Šotra jumping into every single period piece lately, always trying to make things feel all heavy and tragic.

Pavle Vujisić is a total legend in this role, though. I mean, the guy is a legend everywhere you look.🙂

Check out this clip from 1971

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9m68XBG56M

Look, John just played himself, plain and simple. And hey, even if I were from Mexico, it wouldn't change a thing—that’s just how it goes in that crazy sport our folks call "Water Polo"!!🙂

Seriously though, hats off to the water polo team; they left everything out there in the pool. Same goes for the handball guys on the court, and honestly, listening to Hamilton and Bruce Springsteen feels just like "heart on the road."😁

bluerider63 said:Some American guy was claiming the Middle East is about to blow up, but since we don't even see ourselves as being part of that mess, it’ll probably just sail right past us. Honestly, I guess it's our lucky break that we perceive ourselves that way 😬

🤣

Lucky us indeed!! Honestly, you just gotta squint your eyes and pretend everything is fine. It's like when you were a kid and Mom would wait until you finally closed your eyes to turn out the lights, because she knew the darkness felt exactly the same as life in the Middle East!😁