Posts by Mark Hughes36

Jack Harris3 said:I suppose. 😁

Dammit, irreconcilable differences.
If we were in a band, we would have split over "musical differences" by now. 😁

Without getting too deep into real-world examples...
I recall the series "Pride and Prejudice" based on the Jane Austen novel (checked IMDb just now 😁).
Mr. Darcy ended up with one of the sisters, Elizabeth Bennet.
Mostly, her older sister ended up with that insanely wealthy guy.

To me, that girl (Elizabeth Bennet's sister) seemed modest and reserved.
I wouldn't go so far as to say she was emotionally unstable.

Jack Harris3 said:As for character, who exactly needs to agree?
Nobody has to agree with me. 😁

I thought you might be expert enough to know some modern insights, so I asked you like a student asks a teacher. 😁

Jack Harris3 said:You picked an example that’s practically a textbook case. 🤣
I don't know anyone who would turn down a scoop of ice cream. 😁
Except maybe myself, but only if it looks watery and unappealing. 😁

The example was tailored to the age group we were all discussing earlier. 😁
At least physically speaking. 😁
A child in this scenario isn't some emotionally mature, stable adult.
They're way too young for that. 🙂

Do you honestly think being reserved or shy always rules out emotional stability?
Your cynical tone makes me lean toward yes.

By the way, does character consist of both genetics and "training"?
I haven't heard much consensus on the actual split between nature and nurture in shaping personalities.
I'm no social scientist, just someone who likes to talk. 😁

Jack Harris3 said:The bottom line is that some people just lack the backbone to take what's being handed to them on a silver platter. 😁

I get the feeling you’re diagnosing a clinical pathology while you talk. 😁
I doubt we see many people who are truly, pathologically shy or withdrawn.
Usually, it's just a matter of someone having a more stubborn personality.

Can we just agree to call it "selective stinginess" and move on? 😁

Jack Harris3 said:I agree you shouldn't change them, but I disagree that they should be labeled as cheapskates.🙂
If someone starts drooling over my ice cream after turning it down, that doesn't make them a cheapskate.😁

Not everyone processes things the same way,
and I wouldn't go so far as to call it stinginess.
Maybe I'd agree they might have a harder time in life,
but calling someone a cheapskate is still a negative judgment.

Jack Harris3 said:Why wouldn't you just let people hide their true selves if they want to? 😁

You let some people show up, depending on how well you actually know them.
For everyone else, there's always option six.
Plus a trillion other ways to handle it.

Jack Harris3 said:Personally, I think it's all fake—just learned behavior rather than what someone actually wants to be or have.

Character, including that tendency to hide things, is just the sum of heredity and upbringing.
The point is they are who they are. There’s no need to try to change them or label them as losers.
They're just different.
No moral judgment required.
Just a matter of how much emotional fallout you can stomach based on your own temperament. 🙂

Whatever.😁

Jack Harris3 said:I wouldn't. If I ask you and you lack the confidence to just admit you want some, that’s on you. I'll end up eating more anyway. And if you really can't resist, it won't even bother me when I polish off two servings. 😁

In the meantime, I’ve completed an advanced course on self-confidence. Given that, I might just have to ask for a little extra credit if you aren't planning on offering it yourself. 😁
Let’s just say I’m not merely being modest—I’m being downright shameless. 🤣

You’d probably fare quite well navigating this post-capitalist wasteland. 🙂
It’s all easy when your own selfish desires happen to align perfectly with the hollow ideals this society forces upon us.
Based on your responses in this thread, that's likely the case. 🙂

There can be plenty of reasons for turning someone down; it isn't always about a lack of confidence.
Some people are just more guarded than others.
They’ll likely turn down pretty much everything on the table.
Depending on how well you actually know them, you could run Scenario 3 without worrying about it coming off the wrong way.
Of course. You have to know exactly how to play your hand.

Jack Harris3 said:Here is my take. 😁

I never even doubted it. 😁
In my book, scenarios 3 and 4 are the most likely outcomes.

Sloan said:You didn't answer me: what’s the point of someone being humble? What’s actually positive about it?

Let’s play a little game of amateur psychology, shall we?😁
Do you really think there’s anything inherently good about humility? 😁

There isn't much point—some people are just born that way, others aren't.
Everyone triggers different reactions from different types of people.
One person might find modesty charming; another will just find it ridiculous.
There was some proverb about flocks, but I can't recall it. 😁

shipka said:That’s why I don't judge any kind of self-promotion when it’s the only way to actually get ahead.

It isn't about judgment.
There is one level of maturity where you accept that in today's world, you have to fight to "make it."
The second level is having an emotional reaction to the specific way someone chooses to promote themselves—which can vary wildly and be more or less annoying.

Not to mention that people also have emotional reactions to what an individual wants out of life.
Some want everything, some want a lot, and some might not want anything at all (which makes them look fundamentally 😁 broken to certain people).

Jack Harris3 said:shipka, you missed the point. 😁
I don't actually think being humble makes someone a jerk. I'm saying that what Mark Hughes3 used as an example wasn't humility—it was just being a jerk. 😉

What one person calls (axiomatically) being a jerk, another won't.
Look, it's obvious I exaggerated with my example
because some things are hard to put into words.

The fact that you see this as pure assholery shows we operate on completely different wavelengths.

Here’s a slightly more detailed breakdown:

Two kids, acquaintances or friends, but maybe not best friends.
One has enough money for two scoops of ice cream.
The other has nothing.
There are no social cues here to indicate one kid comes from a wealthy family while the other doesn't.
The situation could play out in several ways:

1 - One kid buys two scoops without offering any to the other.
2 - One kid offers a scoop, the other declines, and he buys two anyway.
3 - One kid offers a scoop, the other declines, so he buys two separate single scoops.
4 - One kid offers a scoop, the other accepts, and they share.
4 - One kid offers a scoop, the other declines, so he decides not to buy ice cream at all.
6 - One kid realizes the other is broke and skips the ice cream entirely, avoiding any awkwardness.

...

I know it might seem like we've drifted from the topic.😁
But this fits my simple theory perfectly.

To some people, certain options above automatically signal being a jerk.
To me, they don't.
These are all possible human reactions, depending on how selfish or selfless someone is.
There is no right answer.
No one should feel guilty if they would act differently than you in the same situation.
It’s just how it works—there will always be people to fill every one of those categories.

shipka said:It's just vanity. A confident man can still be humble; they aren't mutually exclusive.

That’s my point, and you seem to be the only one catching on.
These women have completely lost it over marketing hype. 😁

You can be high-quality and confident in several different ways.
Depending on how much ego or arrogance is involved, the reaction from those around you will vary.

In my view, whether someone is selfish or not is what truly drives social interactions.
Everything else is just noise.

Anthony Harris14 said:you haven't actually made a point here
It seems a person is only considered "good" if they have nothing to offer and ask for nothing in return. As soon as they possess value and express a need, they're instantly labeled as bad.
Speaking of which, I once joined a local group on a small island off the coast of Florida for a laugh and visited this psychic who does readings with cards—people visit her once a week like clockwork. The moment we walked in and sat down, I barely said anything beyond a hello, yet she called me a "psychologist." I’m not in that profession, nor was she referring to my career, but clearly, to her, that label carried a negative sting.

On the contrary, I've said plenty. 😉
Life is fairly simple if you don't insist on overcomplicating it.
And if you stop looking for justifications for your thoughts and actions—not that I'm implying you do that, just a general observation.

I wasn't describing "good people," I was simply stating that they exist.
And yes, because of how they carry themselves, they don't trigger negative reactions in others.
Whether those good people are lighthouses, homemakers, professors, or astronauts doesn't matter.

It isn't relevant to this discussion who deserves what.
What matters is their approach—according to my ultra-simplified 😁 theory, good people act in a way that isn't repulsive to others and ensures nobody feels threatened by their attitude or behavior.

Perhaps I'm just not articulate enough to put it properly.
It’s a matter of personal experience.

Here is a simple, relatable example: a beautiful woman can shout "I'm gorgeous" from the rooftops, or she can be modest in her beauty—whether that stems from insecurity, a sense of guilt, or something else entirely.

In any case, the first one will easily provoke envy and resentment in others.
The second might become your best friend, someone you could never feel even a shred of jealousy toward, even if she seems perfect at times.

Clint Eastwood 🙏

I wouldn't link this kind of negative self-assurance—which is what this thread is actually about—to actual skill or competence
It’s just a pose, a performance, and a marketing gimmick

Others might be just as capable, if not more so, but they won't go out of their way to project that specific vibe

I've simplified the whole thing: there are good people and there aren't
Good people don't trigger these kinds of negative reactions from those around them
Mainly because they don't try to sell a version of themselves that isn't real
Nor do they feel the need to climb by stepping on someone else
Good people are humble and decent, all that idealistic stuff😁

ironfalcon27 said:Is there actually anyone here who finds Radiohead annoying?

I can't bring myself to get through them either.
Though I haven't given them a fair shot.
There's always that initial moment of trying, then I just lose interest. 😁

Nathan Wells45 said:Look, someone might be genuinely charming, but once they realize it—once they actually become aware of their own pull and start acting like they know everyone sees it—that charm just evaporates. They change. That self-awareness turns into an ego that separates them from everyone else.

I agree.
To me, it’s the same thing as when someone tries way too hard.

I agree it's interesting
but more in concept than in execution.
I also felt there was some exaggeration just to drive home a point,
much like Michael Moor's style.

All in all, it's worth a watch.
It’s a shame we don't see more films like this hitting theaters.
This documentary, much like Moor's work, proved that documentaries can actually be profitable,
and that's really its greatest value.
The realization that there's money to be made will undoubtedly trigger more production in the future,
and hopefully, some actual quality will emerge from that.

I watched this one with two friends
both of them have a real appetite for good cinema
truth be told, none of the three of us possess any actual expertise when it comes to film analysis
regardless, none of us walked away particularly impressed

It isn't a bad movie, but I can't bring myself to view it as a masterpiece, much like most people feel about this subject
I couldn't shake the feeling of forced artistry—the director spent too much energy on the packaging at the expense of the substance, as the emotional core just didn't land for me

spoiler alert

that contrived mystery surrounding the treasure chest only reinforced my point

I’m not trying to play defense for ironcrane7, but I think the snobbery here lies more with those who hail this as an unrealized triumph than with those who notice its flaws

A typical indie film
with its "deep" layers of symbolism
and those heavy-handed dedications
not to mention the cinematography trying to tell its own story
Aren't those exactly the elements that signal snobbery? That "we see things you mere mortals can't grasp" attitude

Watching this left me with a similar sensation to watching Memento (before Mark Hughes36 jumps down my throat, 😁 I’m not comparing the films themselves, just describing my post-watch headspace)
There is no question they are above-average movies
but I didn't experience them as masterpieces
largely because of that nagging sense that the director was desperately trying to manufacture a masterpiece
and that always rubs me the wrong way

steelstag4, what you said about unconditional love and defiance still rings true
the comparison to one's relationship with God actually holds water

but personally, I find myself leaning toward ironcrane7's take—"essentially one-dimensional and shallow"

The characters and their dynamics just aren't fleshed out enough; it makes the whole thing feel unconvincing
That insistence on extreme reactions from the boys toward a father who suddenly appears out of nowhere feels forced and flat, which adds to that sense of disbelief
To me, the younger boy felt almost caricatured in his behavior, even if it was clear from the start he’s just a hyper-sensitive kid

Maybe some film snobs will try to excuse it as a stylistic choice for minimalism or whatever

spoiler alert

The younger brother's selfishness—that sheer willingness to be stubborn and sulky regardless of the cost—really screams ego. No one is saying he doesn't have reasons, but it was obvious who was responsible for getting back from fishing on time, and the younger brother exploited his older brother's kindness without a second thought just to get his way (though I'm sure some will call that madness😁).

I find this a bit overrated, though I see you all are absolutely loving it here.

But, since I clearly lack the insight to spot the mirrors, the seven deadly sins, the sacrifices, or the journalistic tropes, I suppose my take isn't surprising. 😁

True, the movie encourages reflection on human relationships, which is something I usually appreciate.
However, something about the pacing bothered me—perhaps it was just an exceptional (and at times, truly excessive) sluggishness?
And most importantly—I felt completely emotionally detached from the characters (with the exception of the older brother, whom I started to pity toward the end because of the younger brother's selfishness).
Given that I’m typically hypersensitive, that’s a major failing for a film like this.😁

Maybe it'll seem a little better on a second viewing.