I was reading about some high-performance coaching philosophies recently, and it got me thinking about how much we value constant movement. There's this growing trend in professional circles—sports, corporate, even some fitness communities—where the idea is to essentially eliminate any opportunity for rest or downtime during the "work" phase. The logic is that if you stop moving, you lose momentum, so you just strip away the comforts to keep the tempo high.
Honestly, it feels a bit counterproductive to me. I’ve always found that my best breakthroughs happen during those little pockets of stillness, not when I'm being pushed to a sprint for three hours straight. If you're constantly redlining, you aren't actually processing anything; you're just reacting. I remember a job I had a few years ago where the management basically expected us to be "on" from the second we walked in until we left, and by the end of the month, everyone was just a shell of themselves.
I get the desire for efficiency, but at what point does "maintaining tempo" just turn into "preventing recovery"? Do you guys think this kind of hyper-intense approach actually builds better habits, or does it just lead to a faster burnout?
Most of the hardcore leftists you see today are nothing more than armchair activists. They love to talk a big game, but nobody actually lives in some egalitarian commune, and they aren't out there navigating life alongside multicultural groups or immigrants from overseas. Their shopping habits don't look any different from the average American's, despite all that intense environmental preaching and constant bashing of corporations and consumer culture. You certainly won't find them starting up worker-owned cooperatives that actually prioritize high wages and strict eco-standards...
Even Friedrich Engels was the ultimate example of this kind of salon leftist. He would blow through his capitalist wealth on expensive booze and high-end nightlife without a second thought. Whenever intellectual rivals or labor leaders tried to call him out or mock him for it, he’d just shrug it off, dismissing them as clueless bourgeois philistines who simply didn't get it. It's incredibly difficult for radical leftists to be anything more than "armchair activists" when their entire ideology is built on a pile of unnatural nonsense that's impossible to actually pull off in the real world.
It’s honestly wild how the Sweden Democrats basically vacuumed up every single vote and seat that the moderate right let slip through their fingers during this election. This isn't some massive triumph for the left... it’s just a total reshuffling of the right-wing side of the spectrum. To me, it sends a loud and clear message to Europe: we don't need more people like Fredrik Reinfeldt or David Cameron. What's actually needed is a serious, ideologically driven right wing. Mind you, I’m not exactly a huge fan of the current hard-right parties—their talent pool is pretty shallow and they tend to be full of absolute clowns... but hopefully, their success will force the mainstream conservative parties to take a hard look at themselves and start incorporating some of those tougher right-wing demands. BTW, does anyone happen to know what the economic platform of the Sweden Democrats actually looks like? I can't find anything on Wikipedia or Google, and their own website doesn't seem to have an English section...
Denzel Washington is some kind of religious zealot who’s faced accusations of racism simply because he refuses to film romantic or sex scenes with white actresses, apparently to avoid upsetting his Black fanbase. Honestly, people didn't really hold it against him, but it would be incredibly interesting to see the backlash if a white actress said she wouldn't film a scene like that with a Black man for those exact same reasons. Then again, according to Google, Washington supposedly cheated on his Black wife with a mixed-race woman, Paul Patton—a woman I've seen in a few films and never once realized was of sub-Saharan descent... I just thought she was a darker-skinned white woman, maybe like a Portuguese woman, an Arab woman, or a Mexican woman.
Anyway, speaking of Hollywood marriages, Charlton Heston is a rare breed when it comes to strict monogamy. He never really hid the fact that he wasn't exactly known for being charming or social back in his younger days. He ended up marrying the first and only woman he ever actually went on a date with, and even then, he barely managed to convince her to marry him. It sounds like he had a somewhat obsessive relationship with her throughout their marriage, too. They lived out in some woods far from the center of Hollywood, where Heston could practice his love for firearms in peace. Even most actors who claim to be conservatives—both nowadays and back in the day—aren't actually that conservative when it comes to their sexual habits and marriage...
Where exactly in this movie is this supposed "critical look" at the pharmaceutical industry that everyone keeps talking about? The pharma companies are actually producing the very drugs and chemicals that Matthew McConaughey was sourcing; without them, he would have been dead within a month. As far as I can see, the only real villain in the story is the Food and Drug Administration—that agency under the Department of Health and Human Services—which just kept throwing bureaucratic red tape and legal hurdles in McConaughey's way while he was trying to get his hands on medicine available in other countries...
I noticed the critics have really dragged his score down compared to those early reviews that were actually looking pretty good. I honestly don't get what it is about Dominic... why does he always get so underrated? Is there some specific reason people just won't give him the credit he deserves? He’s easily one of the best living filmmakers out there, yet it seems like he can never quite break past that 60-70% mark with the critics. It honestly kills me to see some unwatchable, total garbage getting 90+ on Rotten Tomatoes these days... probably just because the director is some socially conscious, third-world gay guy or something. Meanwhile, you can only stumble upon actual masterpieces like UNKNOWN if you happen to trip over them by accident. I really hope this doesn't shake his confidence moving forward; I think adaptations of Pop. 1280 and Cities of the Plain could be absolutely legendary films...
It’s a solid enough movie, but I really expected more since The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is easily one of my all-time favorites. Honestly, the plot felt pretty banal... neither the story nor the characters really grabbed me. There was zero tension, and while watching, I just couldn't bring myself to care about who was who or what would happen next. Stylistically, though? It's flawless. Visually and musically, it's stunning. The only clunky part was those heavy-handed interruptions about crises and political choices—it feels like they're always on the menu whenever some uneducated hack turns on the radio or TV. While they should probably provide more context for the story, the way they're forced in gives this hilarious impression that junkies and low-level thugs from the slums are deeply invested in high-level American politics and economic commentary from experts on Wall Street. That said, the scumbags in this film are top-tier, actually outperforming white-trash classics like The Fighter, The Wrestler, Blue Valentine, and Rise of the Footsoldier. That dim-witted Australian junkie is fantastic when he's describing his sexual encounters or his mishaps with dogs; he's a truly layered, high-quality character you rarely see... Unfortunately, the gritty realism and grotesque atmosphere get totally derailed by that unexpected political-philosophical monologue at the end. It feels like the movie suddenly, and quite awkwardly, tries to pivot from the raw world of street criminals into some sort of moralistic social drama about injustice and inequality. Still, overall, it's another pretty good Dominick film.
Let’s be real: the entertainment industry has zero love for conservative politicians. They almost always try to paint them as manipulative psychopaths, while at the same time, they turn socialist revolutionaries—many of whom actually deal with clinically defined personality disorders—into these polished, melodramatic heroes. That’s just the Hollywood standard we’ve grown used to. But what’s really weird about this movie is how it focuses almost exclusively on the private life of Margaret Thatcher. It completely ignores the broader political landscape, failing to even mention her wins against union thugs or those welfare parasites. It feels pretty bizarre to make a biopic about someone whose entire legacy is built on their public service, only to fill it with such obvious mistakes... I honestly don't get what the point of this thing was supposed to be.
The movie is definitely watchable; the technical execution is solid, and I actually find the approach much more engaging than if they had just churned out some dry, purely biographical documentary. Because of that, I don't really get all the complaints being thrown its way. As for those people whining that they didn't "get" anything or learn anything new... honestly, maybe they should try picking up a book once in a while instead of expecting a single film to be their entire education. It’s pretty obvious the movie assumes you have some baseline knowledge, otherwise most of the scenes won't mean a thing—I mean, even that opening scene with the milk requires a bit of context... Still, the film does deserve some criticism for being factually inaccurate, especially from people who actually knew Margaret Thatcher personally. Or, quite simply, because it frames her political career through this skewed lens—treating it like a tragic tale about the struggles of women in the workplace or just some elderly person lamenting bad decisions from the past. If you want a decent breakdown of all the errors and nonsense in the film, check this out: link.
driftinggull21 said:A little bit of vampire paradox for you... why on earth would they bother with human food and beer?🤷
So, they say apples are actually good for your teeth, right? And then you have this guy drinking beer, which probably just means he’s trying to get hammered. Honestly, that feels like the only logical way to look at it... otherwise, the whole movie just doesn't make any sense at all!
I don't really get the hype... the movie just wasn't anything special. I was honestly hoping for some kind of commentary on today's political climate, or maybe some deeper political allegory, but it didn't go there at all. It’s just a mediocre drama where politics feels like an afterthought. The core Plot relies on that one exhausted cliché that's been poked fun at so many times it's basically become a running joke about American politicians. Everything might have actually worked if the characters had any depth, charm, or actual soul, but they were totally hollow. It's an okay enough film—well shot, good acting—but it doesn't rise above the usual mindless popcorn flicks used to kill time...
Honestly, this was surprisingly fun. Sure, there are some logic gaps and total nonsense moments that really start piling up toward the end, but when you look at the atmosphere and the pacing, it actually holds its own. It’s way better than the original—that messy blend of teen comedy and campy horror just doesn't work unless you're feeling super nostalgic for those old 80s flicks. Still, a solid movie for what it is...
briskowl said:That wasn't even the point I was making—really. My post was based on math, which, if I do say so myself, I know quite well. In America, we're looking at a 50% tax rate, so maybe try cramming that realization into your little free-market pamphlets. I honestly don't understand how anyone could look at the American system and call it "free market." You have 50,000 bureaucrats running around in a planned economy like the old SRH, compared to 280,000 in the supposedly free-market US. And—well, just throw all those contradictions into one bag and call it a day. By the way—and this is just an observation—back in the seventies and eighties, the bureaucratic machine of the Republican Party was actually larger than that of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
Maybe try picking up some actual literature instead of those ignorant little pamphlets written by local leftist hacks who see capitalist fingerprints on everything... maybe then you wouldn't run into such nonsense labeling and bad classifications so often. It might help clear up the confusion. Just a thought—try educating yourself. Books are cheap these days, and you can find an incredible amount of stuff online; for instance, certain American right-wing organizations actually offer a huge selection of classic liberal and conservative political economy works for free on their sites, along with really solid scientific articles and studies. If people actually read and used their brains more, there'd be way less ignorance and socialism in this world...
So, if I’m following you correctly, you believe the fundamental flaw in free-market economies is that they inevitably spiral into massive bureaucracy, crushing taxes, and an oversized government... I have to admit, in all my reading on political economy so far, I haven't come across any scholars who base their critique of liberalism on those specific points. Honestly, you should really try to get these original ideas out there—maybe pitch them to academic journals or major news outlets—so the rest of the world doesn't miss out on such deep insights. This is genuinely a fresh perspective.
briskowl said:Everyone loves to drone on about how efficient the capitalist system is—how much productivity is supposedly skyrocketing... but honestly, I have yet to see any of that reflected in my grocery bill or at the gas pump. Prices just keep climbing. And then, whether it’s pure coincidence or not, you see salaries in government agencies creeping up too. It feels like someone is stirring the pot behind the scenes somewhere.
Seriously though, why does nothing ever actually get cheaper in this efficiency-obsessed version of capitalism?
Wait, what do you mean nothing gets cheaper? The computer you’re typing on right now—something almost anyone can afford today unless they’re living in extreme poverty—is lightyears better and way more affordable than the computers from a few decades ago that took up entire rooms and cost millions. Communication is cheaper, flights are cheaper, books are cheaper and often free... Generally speaking, the average person in developed market economies can enjoy a much higher standard of living today regarding hygiene, nutrition, housing, access to information, mobility, and education than even the wealthiest members of the elite could manage in pre-capitalist societies. And honestly, this trend was well underway long before capital started shifting toward Asian countries, so you can't really argue that this is just a temporary byproduct of cheap labor. Or were you talking about nominal prices and inflation? Could you clarify what you meant by that?
briskowl said:Let’s simplify things just to make the math a little easier to digest: Here is the price breakdown for a single product from a massive Western conglomerate operating within an American state: - Total production costs—equipment, labor, R&D, scaling up, the whole nine yards—comes to $3.00, - Taxes paid to the government—$65.00, - Corporate profit—$35.00. That $35? That is pure, liquid cash landing straight in the pockets of the owners.
If you look at those numbers, everything becomes crystal clear. You see why bureaucrats claim to be such staunch lovers of capitalism, and you see exactly why everything in this world eventually ends up controlled by a tiny, opaque handful of people. It also explains why budget deficits keep ballooning in any country that relies heavily on their goods.
The capitalist system is fundamentally built on fear—specifically, that nagging dread regarding the future. That is precisely why it can be—though certainly not always—more efficient than other systems. Personally, I have felt a lot better over the last two or three years, watching that smug, self-assured grin finally start to slip from our bureaucrats' faces as they slowly begin to feel a hint of genuine anxiety themselves.
And what’s the problem with that? Owners start a company because they spot an opportunity to make a massive profit under current market conditions—where one labor market has people willing to work for low wages, and another consumer market has people willing to buy products at relatively high prices. If they hadn't spotted that opportunity, the company wouldn't exist, some people would be unemployed, and others wouldn't have access to that specific product. If you think that’s inefficient and believe you could produce things more effectively and sell them for less, then by all means, go ahead and start your own business to outcompete them...
It’s honestly pretty obvious how much socialism and leftist leaning creeps into the rhetoric of American nationalists, and you can see it everywhere—not just in their economic takes, but in their entire worldview. To me, local nationalists just seem incredibly weak, soft, and almost... feminized.
You really only have to look at the nationalists from major global powers—the big, wealthy nations—to see the difference. They’re aggressive, they’re bold, and they don't give a damn about being ashamed when they glorify their imperial pasts. They completely ignore the historical atrocities their countries committed because they actually defend traditional hierarchies and economic inequality. They embrace competition, conquest, and dominance... it's all part of their DNA. Compare that to our homegrown nationalists who do nothing but whine about how America has always been oppressed, how we've only ever fought defensive wars, or how we're currently being suppressed by some vague "foreign centers of power." They preach that we can only be strong as a collective rather than individuals, and they act like it's somehow inhumane for tiny little players to have to compete in a market against the giants. Basically, American nationalism is defined by passivity, collectivism, constant complaining, and a massive victim complex.
The way these local nationalists talk is almost identical to the rhetoric used by those leftist mobs in Western countries who are constantly crying about inequality, oppression, "power structures," and imperialism. Our right wing is truly embarrassing. Whenever someone in a conversation tries to claim I hold "far-right views," I always feel this weird discomfort... I find myself having to explain that despite my stances, I have absolutely nothing to do with this specific breed of "patriotic" right-wingers. I think most sensible conservatives simply refuse to be associated with those nationalist losers.
The only real argument for nonexistence would have to be some kind of extreme self-loathing or an intense hatred for one's own life. Wanting death just as an escape from physical or mental suffering feels like a pretty weak reason; most strong people could handle those struggles without breaking. I think quite a few philosophers have mentioned how, during their younger years, even Hell seemed like a better, more beautiful option than simply vanishing into total nothingness. It’s easier to endure various pains than to face the idea that your entire psyche is just a fleeting, meaningless accident. As far as I know, the only philosopher who actually pushed the button—or at least did something close to it—was Schopenhauerian disciple Philipp Mainlaender.
Mainlaender developed a much more complex explanation for his suicide. In his view, the existence of the world and human consciousness is a mistake and a tragedy, much like Schopenhauer argued. Actually, he believed God himself committed a sort of suicide, and the result of that self-destruction is the creation of the world. Individual phenomena in this world arose from the shattering of the original unity of all things; physics explains this through the expansion of the universe from an initial singularity. Maybe God just got tired of existing and decided to kill himself, doing so by fragmenting into individual space-time phenomena; our individual consciousnesses are merely transient shards of a dying divine consciousness. The entire universe is moving toward a void that will eventually be reached in accordance with the physical theory of heat death. Since life is an anomaly and a passing absurdity on its way to the universal nothingness that is the fate of all things, Mainlaender believed the only logical solution was to commit suicide and speed up the process. Nonexistence is the final word, and it's better than existence. That is probably the only truly elaborate system of arguments in favor of nonexistence.
restlessfox5 said:I’m not even gonna bring up America here—honestly, there isn't a single political party or group in this country that actually uses "family values" as a real platform unless they're just trying to suck up to the Church. Look, I’m not a conservative myself, so "Christian values" don't really move the needle for me personally, but it's pretty obvious those values—whether you call them family-oriented, moral, whatever—are in a tailspin. And from what I can see, it's happening without any real fallout for society.
Sure, some people will point to rising crime rates or the economy tanking, but if you look at the stats in the US or across Europe, crime isn't actually spiking—it's often dropping—it just feels different because of how the media spins it. As for the economic mess? That's got its own set of issues, and the fallout hits "decadent" places just as hard as conservative ones.
The real question is: how much does this breakdown of moral values actually impact a country? Because if there aren't any negative consequences, then what's the whole point of social conservatism anyway?
To even begin defining negative consequences, you first need some kind of moral framework... a system to decide what counts as positive versus negative. Everything hinges on the criteria used to judge behavior. For instance, one person might argue it doesn't matter whether someone switches partners every few years or stays in a stable marriage, provided their lifestyle doesn't cause financial harm. Others, however, would insist that only stable relationships have any real value, while everything else is just a series of mistakes or a sign of poor taste.
It’s true that statistics show children raised by single mothers, including those with a string of temporary partners, often turn out a bit troubled. There is actually a really solid article by Theodore Dalrymple regarding the state of the family and family values in the United Kingdom: Childhood's End. From the perspective of social utility—things like general public safety and a functioning society—you could argue that the decay of conservative values has negative consequences. After all, most people would prefer a society where kids aren't attacking teachers with knives and where teen pregnancy and drug use are kept in check. But kids might argue they prefer the alternative because they're having more fun, and hey, if someone wants to risk an overdose, that's their right. The little catch is that taxpayers don't really have a choice; they either have to fund social services for individuals prone to risky behavior, or pay for extra measures to protect against the resulting violence and crime.
So, looking at it from the standpoint of society and a common sense understanding of utility, the stronger arguments tend to favor the conservative side. But to provide a rock-solid definition of what is "good" or "bad," we would need a much deeper concept of what makes a way of life meaningful. We would need a moral framework that isn't built purely on utilitarianism... because from a strictly functionalist viewpoint, you could even support that claim Kristol attributes to liberals—that it's perfectly fine for minors to film pornography as long as they're getting paid a decent wage.
Morgan Bishop4 said:Look, there's such a thing as kid's play... like when they pretend to fight wars or whatever... but it stops being fun the second someone's teeth get knocked out or they're getting kicked until they're bleeding. Or is that just part of the game to you?
And I totally disagree with the idea that being smarter makes you a better fighter... I'd argue that smarter people are actually more peaceful, because they actually use their brains and realize there’s no real reason to kill, since they can solve their problems through other means instead of just resorting to brute force... And all those monuments we build to "great leaders" who spent their lives slaughtering people and conquering territory? I don't see that as anything remotely legitimate. That's really the sickest part of our society... viewing those kinds of people as heroes... heroes who sent thousands of their own people to die while they stayed perfectly safe... imagine the sheer "courage" it takes to command an army and just watch them get slaughtered... People in general tend to value all the wrong things in society. Killing is definitely one of them...
Come on, they're just kids. It's baby teeth; they grow back. You guys are being way too hard on these poor children. If we keep this up, we'll end up banning everything, like we're living under some kind of strict authoritarian regime...
It’s just kids playing. Why stop them from having some innocent fun? Besides, getting some physical activity is definitely good for their health, and those kinds of beatings often force a person to think and actually make them smarter.
There was actually a lot of noise recently about that kid whose classmates posted a video on Facebook showing them ganging up on him, even starting a group called "everyone who wants XY out of school" or something like that. Is systematic bullying or beating someone against their will really just "innocent childhood fun"? Once people start fighting, it stops being innocent play. There are kids who wrestle, play tag, or toss stuff around while staying friends. That’s innocent play; systematic harassment isn't. This whole "survival of the fittest" nonsense is just a fairy tale used by various lowlifes, like those who believe in racial superiority or when ten guys jump one person in an alleyway... we could go on forever regarding the definition of intelligence here.
Intelligence—especially in terms of Machiavellian intellect, which is a key trait of evolved primates—could be described as a more sophisticated form of psychological aggression, a type of violence where the mind achieves what the body might not be capable of.
Both Gandhi and the Dalai Lama were aggressive in their own way and they were smart, but as far as I know, they didn't solve problems through violence. Psychological and mental aggression can sometimes be desirable when a person is fighting for what they believe in, but we aren't talking about physical violence against another living being here. Jesus also fought for his beliefs. Was he weak because his pacifist convictions have endured to this day? Whether he existed or not is irrelevant; the convictions remained. The beliefs of various egoistic and megalomaniacal tyrants did not. It is commonly said that carnivores are smarter than herbivores because they get the necessary nutrients for the brain from meat, but it would be incredibly stupid of me to bring that up as an example in this thread.
Why would we kill him? I don't get it.
Look, I’m not the one who reduced human violence down to the basic survival instincts seen in animals. I could argue with you in this thread if I were a lion and you were, say, a tiger. That would mean we were driven by instinct, but you forgot about the brain. Kudos to the lion and the tiger, but they aren't going to hop on a forum to debate morality. Since we *are* debating it, and you consider it a construct of the "weak," it proves that morality still exists and shouldn't be ignored in a topic this specific. If we were lions and tigers, then stories about survival of the fittest would make incredible sense, but I think you like reducing everything to some banal, orthodox view of life that only survives in some nerd's 19th-century evolution textbook.
This topic is getting ridiculous.
Ever heard that laughter is the best medicine? Honestly, just laugh more—it’ll do more for your health than sex ever could. 😉
The way you argue is honestly hilarious. I’m going to reply to this one last time just so I can distance myself from these twisted views you’re trying to pin on me, but that's it... I'm done. Your bizarre leaps from Stalinist institutionalized violence—which is supposedly my position, apparently—to claiming Jesus is somehow rooting for pornographers and senseless hooking up... it really pushes the limits, even for a thread meant for trolling...
Gandhi and the Dalai Lama were both incredibly sharp, and they definitely had an aggressive edge to their intellect, but as far as I know, they weren't about solving problems through violence. Sometimes, you actually need a certain level of mental and psychological aggression just to stand up for what you believe in... but that’s a completely different story from physical violence against another living being. Jesus fought for what he believed in. Does that make him weak, considering his pacifist convictions have actually stood the test of time? Honestly, it doesn't even matter if he was a real historical figure or not... the impact of those beliefs is what remains. On the flip side, look at all those selfish, megalomaniacal tyrants throughout history—their little ideologies didn't last nearly as long... It’s a common idea that carnivores tend to be sharper than herbivores since they get all those essential nutrients for brain development straight from meat... though, honestly, it would be pretty ridiculous of me to bring that up as an actual argument here...
I honestly think Jesus and Gandhi were pretty misguided in most of their core beliefs. Certain flawed ideologies tend to stick around among people who are naturally predisposed to that kind of thinking, so I don't really see why anyone finds that surprising. But that's not even the main point here. What’s actually kind of hilarious to consider is how much Jesus and Gandhi disliked sexuality in general—let alone the extreme stuff you're talking about. If they ever laid eyes on your opening post, they'd probably have to give you a good smack...
If we were all lions and tigers, I guess the whole "survival of the fittest" thing would actually make sense. You wouldn't believe me if I told you... but honestly, I feel like people love to boil everything down to this incredibly basic, old-school view of life. It’s such a cliché. It feels like something you'd only find in some nerd's dusty 19th-century textbook about evolution...
Yeah...
Ever heard that laughter is actually good for you? Honestly, you should probably laugh more often... it’s better for your health than sex is...
Honestly, nothing beats a good, deep laugh. It’s easily the greatest pleasure there is. When you compare it to sex, well, sex just feels a bit too vulgar and messy... For me, that's why I'm such a staunch opponent of any eugenicist thinking. There's no need to try and "improve" or "strengthen" humanity through design. We should just let all the funny little misfits keep jumping around and making us laugh instead...