CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Walter Grant5 › Posts

Posts by Walter Grant5

485 posts shown.

Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021) in Soccer ·
Jessica Gonzalez said:But was it ever different? Both my parents worked, and I used to pick up my sister from daycare when I was starting elementary school. My brother was looked after by sitters our parents paid, or by my sister and me. My dad basically raised himself; he had to attend high school in a different city. Because of how he grew up, I didn't really feel like an adult until I was 23, even though I was 15 back then. And his father lived through both World Wars... so there's no "golden age" or perfect standard to point to. I think it's less about the quantity of time parents spend with kids, rather than just the quality. Kids don't necessarily need constant parental supervision; having time for themselves and their peers is important too. They need to figure out the world on their own sometimes, though parents should help broaden their horizons. For instance, my girlfriend's sister's husband bought their kid several phones and tablets. But what can you even say to them? If you try to give advice, they just get defensive, acting like because my girlfriend and I don't have kids, we don't know anything.

There is so much available today—you could dive into a million different hobbies or activities—yet most kids just spend all their time staring at screens. I guess it's just sad that a tiny virtual world is often more captivating to them than the massive, real world right in front of them.

Man, Robin Fox2, it's always been this way. The difference is, when parents were gone back then, kids weren't facing this "virtual problem" we're talking about. It didn't exist, or at least not anywhere near the level it does now.
→ go to post
Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021) in Soccer ·
Peter Thompson4 said:I don't buy it; it’s all on the parents, plain and simple. It’s their job to actually raise their kids, but apparently, everyone thinks being a parent is just too hard because modern adults have lost their damn minds.
When I look at how many spoiled brats are running around these days, it honestly makes me want to scream, especially since they have zero clue they're basically sabotaging their own kid's future, but hey, not my circus, not my monkeys.
Then you've got the complete opposite crowd who won't give their kids a single thing, treating them like they don't even exist, and honestly, you just have to find some middle ground.

It’s the exact same bullshit with dogs, too—people treat them like tiny human babies or whatever the hell (for the record, I have a dog), and that’s why everything is so high-strung and aggressive lately, because people refuse to treat an animal like an actual animal.

Saying it's *only* the parents is a stretch. The system is broken. The standard of living is broken. With most families nowadays, both parents are out working. That cuts into the actual quality time they could be spending with their kids. On the flip side, I wouldn't ignore the trends either. Never. Even adults fall for marketing, let alone kids. Kids are basically the target demographic for every gadget and tech company out there. And that influence is everywhere. It’s hard to raise a kid away from all this digital garbage when you have to account for how society reacts to that upbringing. The social standing of a kid raised like that is... weird. Experimental, almost. To actually fix things, you'd need either a massive, sudden societal shift—maybe some kind of shock to the system—or a slow, gradual change. Which is more likely.

Robin Fox2, it's tough to say who had it harder. Physically speaking, previous generations definitely had it rougher—exponentially so compared to us. But every era has its own mess. Who's saying it's any easier growing up in a world that's becoming increasingly dehumanized by technology?
→ go to post
Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021) in Soccer ·
Sure, they’ll pick up some skills, but unfortunately, most of them aren't exactly life-saving stuff. It’s not just on the parents, though—it's this whole massive shift toward urbanization and the way everything is trending now.

btw, they're basically being programmed by the system at this point.
→ go to post
Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021) in Soccer ·
Thinking along the lines of the CIA and Jessica Gonzalez. Honestly, I don't have a problem with smartphones or any other gadgets, but we really need to keep them away from kids in school. Everyone can do whatever they want with their own tech, but don't go poisoning innocent kids with that crap. Let them decide for themselves when they're at least a bit more mature—maybe not until late high school.
→ go to post
Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021) in Soccer ·
keep your opinions to yourself—so why doesn't that rule apply to the person actually saying them?
→ go to post
Two Days, One Night in Movies ·
northerncrane4 said:But what exactly are you expecting from a system like that? For it to babysit every single individual? That's just not how things work. A system exists to serve the largest possible group of people sharing common ground. In a Western social structure, if the lead character doesn't fit into the mold, there's always another system waiting to absorb her.

I expect exactly what’s happening from that system. From the next one, I’d expect it not to create these mess situations in the first place. Why even offer a bonus just to snatch someone else's job? What kind of "ideal" American social system creates these kinds of dilemmas? It’s standard—that’s just the limit of our society. If it were better, we wouldn't be talking about this problem. The real question is whether she’s a victim of the system or if she’s just responsible for her own mess. Based on your take, you're saying she's on her own.

I said that tackling a social issue in this specific way—the way these filmmakers do it—inevitably involves some festival pandering. Purely empirical. Because that’s what wins awards. They touch on a theme without actually engaging with it. What this movie does, again, isn't exploring a theme; it's just stating it.

So the movie doesn't deal with solidarity? It just records a situation and calls it a day?

By living and acting within the world of The Dardenne brothers. Whereas they don't live or act in their protagonist's world.

I live in that world too, yet I still disagree with you. Can you explain that without using some "trust me, I'm right" fallacy? Is the message just artificial or what?

Yeah, but those people have issues too, and sometimes those issues landed them where they are now. Maybe they have an excuse for acting that way—at least an excuse for themselves. That's worth looking at. If you aren't going to dive into those questions like The Dardenne brothers do.

Everyone has their reasons for everything; that much is obvious. The sticking point is whether those reasons have any moral legitimacy. You're basically forcing a deterministic worldview here. When you say they might have their reasons, it raises the question: are they just playing out assigned roles, or are they exercising free will? If it's the latter, then yeah, they're probably just assholes.
→ go to post
Two Days, One Night in Movies ·
Lisa Williams31 said:That's just not enough here, sorry.
I'm with northerncrane4 on this—they’ll still live fine. It’s not like they were physicists at NASA or some big-shot diplomat in D.C. whose lifestyle is about to tank.

Sometimes I actually agree with those old-school ladies back home—some people just need a shovel and a hard day's work to clear their heads. They'll whine less about rights from some outdated socialist era while they're munching on Snickers and scrolling through iPads, acting like the world is ending.

The whole scene at the store grossed me out. This couple—one of the first ones I remember seeing—walked up to the manager and explained they teach kids and can barely make ends meet, so a little bonus would mean the world (which makes sense). All she did was pull a face and shed a tear so the guy would feel bad. Point being?
Give me a break.

If they're going to live okay (not starving or homeless), does that mean losing their job didn't hurt them? And she's got kids too.

Besides, they'll be fine without the bonus. You could look at it that way. She didn't really complain after all.

Since when is taking time off for health issues a valid reason to put someone in a position where they lose their job?

Do you even have a job?
→ go to post
Two Days, One Night in Movies ·
So you're claiming people haven't done anything to improve their own lives. How does that even work when the individual is the least influential player in a system designed to exert control? This whole setup favors people who already have an edge, giving them more leverage over whatever comes next. You've got folks in a sweet spot because they're offered—for a price—the chance to decide someone else's fate, while that other person is stripped of any say in their own future. The system itself created this mess.

Since when did depression stop being a legitimate psychological illness? What if someone wiped out on a motorcycle and spent two months stuck in a ditch? Or had a massive car wreck?

How can you be so sure that tackling social issues is just some calculated move for film festivals? By that logic, picking a niche topic would be "anti-festival" or some kind of underground statement. That calculation concept can be applied to anything; it’s too easy to twist. Is our little debate here a calculation too? Does that prove your observation is somehow organically authentic? Do we really need to run every single thing through that filter as if it's the ultimate litmus test?

And what, should people just suck up suicidal depression because their material conditions are fine? Since when was having money a prerequisite for mental health? Look at someone like Robin Williams—he commits suicide, and suddenly everyone assumes he was just spoiled?

You depend on things in different ways, sure, but you're less dependent than you think. There's a better shot when influence is balanced out. Look, we aren't directly responsible for the omnipotent idiots abusing their positions, acting "in the interest of the country" while screwing everyone else over. They're the ones shaping the systems, while you're just living in the ones that suit them best. Yeah, that's life. What have I personally done to make things better? That’s the answer to everything.
→ go to post
Two Days, One Night in Movies ·
I can't even be bothered to argue.

Let's get some things straight:

The movie clearly isn't tackling deep existential crises since you've got characters eating ice cream in the park while chatting about the whole situation.
They're surrounded by this fake material security just to signal they've "made it," but obviously, that’s not what actually makes people happy—something you see in real life all the time. Modernization did its thing, I guess. You don't have to be a farmer to feel like you're breathing in toxic air.
People can be total jerks to one another just to build up capital, even when it's not a matter of life or death. Like, someone might fix up their yard without giving a damn if a coworker loses their job because of it.
The lead woman turns down a job just to spite the temporary hires who voted for her. It's a much healthier way of looking at things than the crap her colleagues pulled on her.
I read an interview where the Dardenne brothers mentioned a similar real-life situation—someone losing their job for those exact reasons—as the inspiration for the film. So what if the characters look like something out of a newspaper clipping? People actually live this stuff.

Look, dammit, I honestly don't see some hypocritical pattern in the movie. All I see is a depressed protagonist with a guy and two kids who lost her job because her daily coworkers—the ones she grabs coffee with during breaks—turned their backs on her just to chase some bonus. And she's struggling with it. Yeah, I relate to her. Not everyone is built the same. Not everyone handles problems the same way. And not every problem is some massive philosophical crisis. So what if she has a decent, modern little apartment and ordered pizza for the kids? Does that automatically make them high society?

edit: I called out Anderson Cooper, obviously, but that bit does have some weight. What I meant was that we aren't always solely responsible for ourselves, and there are a million better examples than this. In fact, we often depend on others way more than it seems. Are we supposed to be blamed for that?
→ go to post
Two Days, One Night in Movies ·
northerncrane4 said:Unknown, Walter Grant, stop being basic. What does Anderson Cooper have to do with your destiny? Why are you even working at local news stations?

it has negative political influence. And politics shapes destinies.

how is that "too good" for us? what's actually good, and how are we supposedly better than that or above it just to be considered spoiled? why generalize when plenty of people are struggling, with tons of unemployed folks and terrible social standing? maybe things are fine for you, so don't project that onto everyone else. were you trying to say we aren't on an existential edge? do we have to be on the brink for it to matter?

She didn't get hit that hard. She’ll still have a roof over her head, hot running water, a bathroom, her husband works as a chef, so she'll eat fine.
It's some lady with two little kids who's ready to swallow a pack of Xanax because she "can't take it anymore." Sorry, but my sympathy is sitting at absolute zero.

first off, she didn't pop a whole box of Xanax just so you could feel bad for her; she was established from the jump as a fragile, depressed person. that's just how the protagonist is written.

secondly. she did get screwed. she had a job and lost it because her coworkers turned out to be assholes. you want everything to be a total catastrophe just so it's worth talking about.

But that's not true, that this system turns people into assholes. This system actually favors people as much as possible.

so they'll just vote to get a bonus instead of letting their coworker keep their job? doesn't that show it benefits some more than others, creating these gaps between them?

It bothers me how this film forces this false dichotomy, and you're just repeating it here. It's not a matter of life or death. At most, it's a question of living at a higher or lower standard. So I'll ask again—what did this protagonist do to deserve a higher standard? Especially since her "lower" standard is still pretty high.

there isn't one, there's just the gap between a normal standard and a bad one. anyway, what even counts as a high standard? maybe from the view of people who have nothing? if that's the case, let's just never talk about the problems of the middle or upper class ever again.
why are you constantly ignoring the solidarity in the story? social status isn't even the main issue in the movie; it's the interpersonal relationships. Besides, the film ends on a totally positive note, which proves the point.

How does it not speak to it? It compares itself to films dealing with very similar, if not identical, themes. Why would we ignore the better examples?😕

Yeah, but you’re trying to force me to defend some "masterpiece," which isn't what I said about this flick.
→ go to post
Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021) in Soccer ·
Man, I've seen that stuff before, but it's total garbage. Saw it go down right in front of me yesterday.
→ go to post
Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021) in Soccer ·
Elizabeth Mendoza said:So, does anyone else actually have more than five paper-pushers on their team?

Yeah, they exist.
→ go to post
Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021) in Soccer ·
gotta take down Starčević🙂

man, these bankers are such a headache. honestly, I’d love to just wreck every single one of them at 5 PM and let the whole system crumble. period.
→ go to post
Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021) in Soccer ·
Keith Patel81 said:Honestly, he’s looking even more masculine than Cristiano Ronaldo right now.😂

image
→ go to post
Two Days, One Night in Movies ·
northerncrane4 said:But that’s just because we have it too easy, not because things are actually going south. People today—I'm talking about Western civilization—are mostly just spoiled brats.

Big debatable point there. First, we gotta define what "good" even looks like before we can use it as a yardstick. Right now, some guy like Anderson Cooper is basically pulling the strings on our fates, and I highly doubt you or I are the ones to blame. Not to mention the guys with much thicker fingers.

It goes without saying that this needs to be discussed, but we need to talk about it seriously. And seriously—what did this protagonist actually do to deserve a better life, assuming she's even a real person? What did any of her unqualified coworkers do to earn a thousand-dollar monthly or yearly bonus? Why should we care about any of them? Just out of some vague sense of human empathy? That’s just standard dramatic tropes, not actual people. Movies like this aren't made to make us question things; they're made so festival crowds can feel good about their own empathy.

What did she do to deserve better? It's pretty obvious. She didn't do anything to deserve being treated like crap. But she got treated like crap. Because this system turns people into assholes. That's the whole point of the movie, not those ten layers of characterization shoved into two days and one night just so we might feel something for one specific person. The film isn't about that. It's not about whether these specific characters are good or bad. It's about that pure solidarity that exists during office coffee breaks against brightly colored white walls, only to vanish right when it matters most. That pattern bugs you. Doesn't bug me. Whatever.

Compare this film to DeSoto. Compare it to "Citizen Kane." There's a massive difference in how the characters are built and how the story is told.

Idk why you keep raising the bar like that. It doesn't say anything about this movie. Sure, I watched The Thief, absolute masterpiece, but by your logic, that fact has zero bearing on the movie we're actually talking about.

In other words—it's all a calculation.

Hard to say. Usually, weirdness attracts people. Weirdness is exotic; being ordinary isn't.
→ go to post
Two Days, One Night in Movies ·
know what the issue is? I get why it bugs you, and I’m really trying to see it through your lens, but I just can't shake my gut reaction to how this movie plays out. The vibe hit me hard—it felt like looking at the same gritty reality I deal with every damn day working different shifts in the city, and honestly, it still gets under my skin. It’s good to talk about it though, fuck it, I'm not gonna lie to myself.

Look, you're entitled to hate on the "mundane" stuff, totally fine. Just don't blame the movie for it when it was clearly aiming for exactly that. That much is obvious. There wasn't some hidden agenda or "we meant to do this" bullshit going on. It laid everything out plain and simple.

edit: if there isn't already a thread for this, let's start one and move this over. gotta run.
→ go to post
Two Days, One Night in Movies ·
I mean, looking at how things are now, has there ever been a bigger gap between the haves and the have-nots than what we’re seeing today? Does anyone actually think anything else matters more? Even at the bottom, people are constantly eyeing each other sideways just because of money.

When I talk about "average," I’m not talking about some mathematical line on a graph. I mean that whole mass of people hovering around the middle. The folks in that movie are just circling this imaginary center point, right? Since they aren't real, and you said in your first post that they were—that the movie feels so grounded that people react to it like it's real life. Yeah, well, I guess that's exactly what they were aiming for.
→ go to post
Two Days, One Night in Movies ·
hiddenbear4 said:Don't even go there... how the hell do you even know what those "author's intended messages" are supposed to be? Everything you're saying is just your own spin on some single news article.

Look, why bother? The writer of *Soap* is basically the whole damn house, not just one or two people. And they all use the exact same playbook—just throwing together these messy webs of circumstance that always follow the same tired pattern. In the end, the funniest part is how the biggest trash pile ends up being the highlight. You can't tell me that's some calculated message. On the flip side, maybe it’s just basic stuff. A story about a woman losing her job because of some corporate bonus scheme, literally begging to get it back... filming that right now, in the middle of this brutal era of American capitalism, could actually be a massive critique of the system. We just pretend the "content" isn't the point. That's my take. It matters. It doesn't need to be some over-the-top, cinematic spectacle to actually mean something.

All five of you, I still don't get why we're even talking about that movie here. What does anything by the Dardenne brothers have to do with "12 Angry Men"?

Just like that soap opera vibe from the Dardenne films. We dragged twelve angry people along for the ride, so we might as well have brought some soap too.
→ go to post
Two Days, One Night in Movies ·
Look, you don't need some massive scandal or huge shifts to make a point. If you go that route, "average" just stops working. Any big spike away from the norm is an outlier—it turns the movie into something else entirely. Which is fine, I guess, but then you aren't really talking about the reality of the American middle class; you're just telling one guy's weird, extreme story.

The movie actually has substance because if it didn't, an average life wouldn't have any either. And we both know this one has meat on its bones. You find the most nuance in the middle ground; extremes are just their own thing.

But nothing's gonna change. She’ll just sit on welfare until she lands some dead-end, unskilled job. Or she'll just die of depression.

It’s about the slow grind of human decay and misery. Why does that matter to me and not you? Because it happens all the time without being "special"? Exactly. It's mundane. That's why we've reached this stage of total apathy—we only give a damn about stuff that's loud and extreme. Screw that, then.

I'm with you on those 12 angry men, taking that comparison back.

I'll check out Le Couperet, I promise.
→ go to post
Two Days, One Night in Movies ·
hiddenbear4 said:Some people just do that. My grandma used to watch soap operas and swear at the screen. Then she'd go on some deep rant about "human nature" because of some random character.

but that’s not some deep message from the soap opera writer. that’s just someone overthinking a commercial for porch lights.

So why did you bring up "12 Angry Men"? What was the point?

especially when Smuđ says that given how they work, the Dardenne brothers could crank out 10 movies like this in 10 weeks.

nothing against "12 Angry Men," though.
→ go to post