Posts by ironmarlin1

The Holocaust is an undeniable historical fact, Sarah Wilson95. On the other hand, the existence of a nation-state is essentially just a social convention—a collective agreement we all participate in. It’s vital to distinguish between those two fundamental concepts. Honestly, getting hung up on Ahmadinejad is just absurd; it’s like suggesting that because of Hitler or Stalin, anyone who happens to have a mustache is somehow advocating for mass murder.

Besides, if we follow your line of reasoning, even anarchists who want to dismantle every single government would be branded as peddling "post-Nazi hate speech" or holding views suspiciously similar to Ahmadinejad. Blah, blah, blah, Ahmadinejad.

all in the name of "freedom of speech"?

Exactly. That "freedom of speech" you’re so carefully putting in quotation marks is specifically meant to protect the unpopular opinions, not just the easy ones.

I feel compelled to point out how incredibly hypocritical it would be if the moderators actually decided to side with dustypuma5 and slybison8. It’s almost comical, really. I recall a time when I started a thread specifically designed to demonstrate how the fascists, the administrators, and the moderation team seem to view antisemitism as something perfectly acceptable within this community; yet, the moment I posted it, the whole thing was shut down instantly under the flimsy pretext that my critique didn't "concern" antisemitism itself. It’s a classic bit of circular logic, isn't it? Just look at this for proof:

dustypuma5 said:My attempt at drawing an analogy back to the era of the American Civil War essentially boils down to this: imagine if a humanitarian aid convoy was being led by an organization that originated in Turkey—an outfit that’s actually been banned over there because of their extreme Islamist ties—and then you realize one of the key sub-organizers behind the whole operation is the Free Gaza Movement.
It really all boils down to a rather absurd hypothetical scenario: imagine if an organization operating out of Mexico City, calling itself "Greater Mexico," decided to ship aid over to the Appalachia region, only to flatly refuse to let American authorities inspect the cargo.

So, you’re suggesting that the Free Gaza Movement is somehow analogous to the concept of Greater Mexico? Please, give me a break. Your demagoguery is about as subtle as a sledgehammer, and frankly, it's transparent to anyone paying attention. You only seem to get away with this because you and the Moderator enjoy the peculiar privilege of zealously defending the exact same side, which apparently grants you total immunity from scrutiny here. While I have your attention, I’ll take this opportunity to reiterate my standing demand: we cannot have threads moderated by individuals who are actively participating in the fray and championing one specific side of the argument. Have any of you actually witnessed a real-world debate? If you had, you might finally grasp the fundamental purpose a moderator is supposed to serve. Thanks for nothing.

It’s pretty obvious how much I’m trolling just by looking at this thread. Neither ironmarlin1 nor his buddies—who act more like Jihad fighters than anyone else here—can offer a single shred of a counterargument to my point. They can't deny that Palestinians killed seven times as many civilians as Israelis during the Second Intifada. Because they can't refute that fact, their constant whining about the Wall and labeling Israelis as some genocidal nation intent on wiping out Palestinians only serves to validate my stance, making their desperate calls to dismantle the State of Israel look even more ridiculous.

I really appreciate how you persist with these ad hominem attacks—labeling people "Jihad fighters"—while simultaneously trying to deconstruct the very posts that slybison8 defends and tolerates. Your line of reasoning is so skewed that, by your own logic, one could argue the Allies were greater criminals than Germany during World War II. If you take the firebombing of Dresden or the devastation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you’d have plenty of evidence to support your point. I assume you realize just how utterly absurd the conclusion of your "argument" actually is?

It’s truly fascinating—and quite frankly, a bit baffling—how discussing the right to debate the erasure of an entire nation is instantly branded as nothing more than trolling. I had always harbored this somewhat optimistic notion that humanity had reached a certain level of civilizational maturity; I genuinely believed that any citizen possessing a decent education and a shred of civilized sensibility would instinctively support sanctions against, or even outright bans on, public calls and discussions aimed at dismantling a people's existence, their right to live, or their fundamental right to organize into a sovereign state.

Are we seriously talking about the "abolition of the right to life"? Please, let’s be serious for a second. If you’re looking for the entity that actually undermines the fundamental right to exist, you should probably start by looking at a nuclear-armed power that has spent its entire history occupying neighboring territories and indiscriminately targeting civilians and essential infrastructure. It’s quite fascinating, really—the way you seem to equate the mere existence of a state with the inherent right to live. By following your particular brand of logic, it would imply that Palestinians lost their right to life the moment Israel was established, which is an absurdly dangerous leap to make.

I’m not exactly jumping in to take a side on whether Israel should even exist, but let’s be honest: this entire thread was clearly cooked up just to stir the pot. dustypuma5 keeps trying to force these parallels to the American Civil War as if there's some profound connection between those events and the current tension between Palestine and Israel. It's a classic tactic—he uses these analogies to troll in almost every single post, and this time is no different.

Furthermore, if we’re going to get pedantic and debate the very existence of Palestine, then why shouldn't we apply that same scrutiny to the existence of Israel? I’m not disputing the legitimacy of either side, but if we’re going to play by these kinds of rules, we really ought to maintain a consistent standard for everyone involved.

You see these endless articles popping up in the media lately, all claiming to dissect how music supposedly impacts our physical and mental health. From what I gather, there are even specific branches of "music therapy" out there. To be perfectly honest, the whole concept feels a bit dubious to me, yet I find myself wondering where the actual substance lies—especially since they even offer specialized courses on the subject at places like Columbia University. It makes me wonder: what’s the real catch? If we follow this logic to its conclusion, could we just start prescribing aromatherapy as a medical intervention? Is everything that happens to make us feel a little better suddenly classified as "therapy"? And if that's the case, why does music get this privileged, almost sacred status? Why aren't we seeing people prescribed "soccer therapy" to boost their mood? 🤷

Anyway, I just wanted to lay out a few of these inconsistencies and questions to see what everyone else thinks about it all.

Roger Long67 said:Her kindness is portrayed with such overwhelming conviction—I mean, even the doctor eventually caves and admits that Bess was simply a "good" person—that there are really only two reasons why you might have missed it. Either you’re just like those rigid, ideologically blinded townspeople, or you’ve never actually experienced true feminine love in your life. If you had, you would’ve recognized so many hallmarks of a woman in love within Bess's behavior—especially if she's perhaps a little "tipsy" on top of it all. The only way I can see it is if you believe a woman in love is inherently naive or just plain crazy. Does love always have to be held back by reservations? Because if it does, then I'm not sure we're even talking about the same thing.

Beyond that—and I know you’ve made your stance clear in your previous posts—we’re living in such a cynical, pragmatic era now that people like Bess are becoming an endangered species. But we really have to keep in mind that this story is set in the 70s, back when these kinds of eccentric souls were actually a bit more common in the world.

At first, he framed it as this purely altruistic thing—that he’d maintain a normal sexual life just so he could eventually find her stories appealing again, since they served as a kind of mental stimulation that kept him feeling "alive." Regardless of how you spin it, HER choice was to embrace that "exploitation" as the ultimate expression of unconditional love. Honestly, I don't see why a story like this couldn't be set in some small, remote village in rural India or deep in the heart of an Islamic community. At its core, the narrative is really about rebelling against the rigid norms of a dominant religious society.

Her kindness is indeed suggestively portrayed, as you put it. However, there is a fundamental issue here: what the director intends to suggest isn't necessarily what is objectively suggested. I fail to see why you assume I didn't recognize Bess's intentions, motives, or desires. What I disputed was Trier's final verdict on how her love is realized, not her intention to do good. Now, I could certainly list several reasons why you missed the mark (just as you are doing to me), but it’s probably better to skip the low blows. As for your question, the answer is that love must have reservations (which is painfully evident in many cases of domestic abuse). Perhaps certain religious practices might tolerate or even glorify the sacrifice of women for men, but that says far more about those religions than anything else.

Sometimes, a greater love and self-sacrifice toward someone is shown by leaving them behind, which is a much harder path to walk. But that’s a different conversation entirely, and since the film ended the way it did, it shouldn't have been used to morally endorse or celebrate such a humiliation of a woman in the service of a sick male fantasy.

And regarding your claim about "endemic species," you’re really just proving my point about the film's sexist undertones. To produce a "pure" type of woman, one has to be raised within a strict patriarchy.

At the start, he altruistically wanted her to continue a normal sexual life so that, over time, he would begin to enjoy her stories, as they served as a form of mental masturbation that kept him "alive." Regardless, HER CHOICE was to permit this "exploitation" as the most sublime act of unconditional love. And I don't see why such a story couldn't be told in some small rural village in the Middle East or India. After all, the core of the story is a rebellion against the norms of the dominant religious community.

Yes, and it is also a choice for some women to permit any kind of abuse in the name of love. Many accept it as an act of unconditional devotion while knowing they are suffering at the same time. I can easily imagine how a woman like that might interpret this film. Hmm, cynicism and pragmatism—it truly is the very cynicism you speak of.

hiddenhound3 said:That is a very wise conclusion, though perhaps you should apply it to yourself. 😁

The reality is that everyone sees exactly what they wish to see—or more accurately, what they are capable of seeing—depending entirely upon the conceptual framework surrounding the viewer.
By observing our own reactions and the concepts we hold, we gain direct insight into ourselves.

Hehe, mind you, that doesn't mean any interpretation goes. Take New Criticism (in literary circles), for instance; it relies strictly on the text itself. The real issue is that the relationship of implication—or even the actual meaning of a text—only carries weight when filtered through a broader theory of the world, whether that's science, philosophy, or art. A work can't be semantically isolated, otherwise it would be nothing more than de facto a string of physical symbols. For example, you simply cannot strip away the fact that the director of Passion of the Christ is antisemitic, nor can you ignore the depiction of Jews killing Jesus (not to mention how Mel Gibson kept the scene where the Jews are cursed while opting to cut the subtitles under pressure, knowing full well how it will be translated in parts of the world where antisemitism is rampant). Ultimately, a work must be interpreted holistically.

Segments that allow for multiple interpretations should be recognized as such, rather than insisting on a single "correct" reading. But with Breaking the Waves, I find it genuinely difficult to stomach the unambiguous moral glorification of a senseless sacrifice as if it were merely some twisted male fantasy.

I honestly can't help but feel that we’re all just circling the drain when it comes to discussing this particular subject, drifting through these endless debates without ever truly grasping the core of the matter. It's much like watching a slow-motion replay of a championship game where you know exactly how the play ends, yet you find yourself mesmerized by the sheer, agonizing tension of the buildup. There is a certain weight to these discussions, a gravity that pulls us in, much like how one might feel sitting in a quiet corner of a dim library in Boston, surrounded by the heavy scent of old paper and the unspoken wisdom of centuries. We tend to get lost in the minutiae, focusing on the tiny, jagged edges of an argument while completely ignoring the broad, sweeping landscape that defines the entire conflict. I find myself wondering if we are even capable of seeing the forest for the trees anymore, or if we have become too enamored with our own specialized lenses to ever appreciate the view from the summit. It feels as though we are constantly rearranging the furniture in a house that is already being reclaimed by the elements, performing these intricate little rituals of logic and rhetoric while the very foundation shifts beneath our feet. Perhaps there is a sense of comfort in the repetition, a way to stave off the realization that some questions simply don't have answers that satisfy the soul, but I cannot shake the feeling that we are merely stalling for time. kaže:
I’ll be the first to admit that the ending is absolutely pathetic, but honestly, even that level of melodrama can’t overshadow the core message this entire film carries. Having followed Lars' work quite closely over the years, I don't think any of his previous takes on Medea have ever truly topped this one. I haven't actually had a chance to sit down and watch *Europa* yet—though my expectations for it are sky-high—but since I know you hold an atheist worldview, I completely understand why those Christian undertones left such a bad taste in your mouth. For me, though, I tend to view those religious elements through a purely symbolic lens; religion doesn't carry much weight in my own life either, but I don't exactly harbor a deep-seated aversion to it like some others might.

I don't really have anything against Christian undertones appearing in films—unless, of course, that religious subtext is the entire point of the narrative or something along those lines. It’s giving off major snuff film vibes. It brings to mind those heavy religious epics—think along the lines of *Passion*. But here, there’s this lingering sense that religion is being used as a sort of cosmic "thank you" note to a woman simply because she sacrificed herself for a man, essentially playing out his specific fantasies. It feels like a strange way to frame devotion, though I suppose I’m just circling back to my own point again. 😍

Just one more little thing... have you ever heard of the Aghori? They’re these Hindu ascetics who, even when engaging in their most gruesome and necrophilic rituals, manage to maintain this incredible, unwavering devotion. It’s a heavy concept, I know, but there's something profoundly striking about that kind of absolute commitment. Clean.There’s something almost "Artemidian" about the way he absolutely surrenders himself to his obsessions; it's a total immersion into these heavy, profound themes that feel almost too weighty for a casual conversation right now. But let's be honest—this film isn't nearly as innocent as it might appear on the surface.

You know, you often see these little archetypal nods scattered throughout cinema—think of those Nietzschean tensions between the Apollonian and Dionysian elements, for instance. Not necessarily in this specific film, but as a general phenomenon in the medium. I can't help but feel that, more often than not, we aren't actually seeing what the film implies, but rather just projecting whatever it is we're itching to see onto the screen. It’s a simple byproduct of the fact that a single cluster of facts, or a sequence of events, can be twisted into countless different and even contradictory interpretations. Honestly, I think the absolute worst thing you can do in art is go hunting for the "artist's intention," acting as if the creator holds some sort of divine authority over how their work is understood.

Roger Long67 said:No, I judge goodness—regardless of gender—by how much we serve one another. And let's be honest, that is the hardest thing to do. Being good is difficult; being selfish is easy. That’s why characters like Bess, Selma, and Grace represent the true greatness of the human race. Their sacrifice gives them a mythic quality, even though they are portrayed as the most ordinary, simple, and natural beings. That is precisely the point!

I have to admit, I could never be like them, and that's exactly why I envy them. It isn't about reaching some ultimate goal (like the kingdom of heaven) through justified means (unconditional sacrifice)—it's about who they ARE. Right here, right now. They don't calculate based on earthly gains; their only focus is the well-being of those around them. The heavenly bells are just von Trier's way of presenting a reward from God for such sacrifice, and while I personally have my doubts about such happy endings, his poetic allure almost makes you want to believe in them.

Because I know, deep down, that without people like Bess, Selma, and Grace, society would be filled with spiritual voids.

I certainly agree that one ought to strive for goodness, 😁, but even if Trier's intention was to portray virtue through the lens of cinema, that doesn't mean the film actually succeeds in doing so. Instead, what we see is a depiction of how female naivety can be exploited—or, had the film taken a different path, perhaps a descent into madness.

northerncrane4 said:Her husband with "pathological demands"? Where did that come from? It’s been a while since I watched it—I can't quite recall that specific detail.

goldenhound32 said:I suspect my colleague Davor is referring to that moment when bessin's husband told Bess to go screw herself with everyone else.

northerncrane4 said:He didn't say that so he could watch her—it was about letting her live her own life regardless of his absence.🤷

goldenhound32 said:Exactly.

Now we just wait for our colleague 🙂Davor

Jamie Davis9 said:..but rather to listen to about it.
Even then, it isn't exactly a tragedy.

He tells her to sleep with others and that she should tell him about it. But then, suggesting he actually said this to encourage her independence—and that her telling him about sleeping with others is somehow an issue—makes it sound as though sex itself is a moral failing (even though the film never implies that). If she wouldn't have slept with anyone else under any other circumstances, then the way the film ends suggests that God is satisfied with this exploitation and that her actions were somehow righteous. To me, that feels like a deeply inhumane stance toward women.

I honestly can't stop thinking about how much weight certain cinematic choices carry, especially when you look at a film like *Breaking the Waves*. It’s one of those rare instances where the raw, unvarnished emotion hits you right in the gut before you even have a chance to brace yourself. You know that feeling? When a director isn't just showing you a story, but is essentially forcing you to inhabit the very soul of the characters? That’s exactly what happens here. It reminds me of those old, heavy dramas you’d see playing in a dimly lit theater in Chicago—stories that don't care if you're comfortable, they only care if you're paying attention. kaže:
I’m not suggesting we’re looking at some modern, enlightened version of masculinity here; what we’re actually dealing with is a twisted, archaic form of patriarchy that somehow still manages to hold sovereign power in this day and age. That said, I completely get where you're coming from—I really do. I’m not trying to pick a fight or dismantle his position directly; I’m just attempting to push the conversation one step further.

I honestly think the concept itself is... well, it's complicated. It’s one of those terms that feels straightforward on the surface, much like how a simple melody can mask a deeply complex arrangement, but once you actually start peeling back the layers, you realize there's a whole lot more going on under the hood than anyone initially lets on. Strong women. To call this kind of poetics and philosophy—this whole metaphysical approach—profane or even anti-feminist feels like a massive oversimplification; in reality, the nuances are far more subtle and complex than that.

If you're looking for a recommendation, I’d honestly suggest you sit down and watch Medea.

I’ll go along with the idea that the whole "strong woman" trope has become a bit of a tired cliché lately. But when it comes to this specific film, I can only make sense of it if we assume the path Bess traveled was somehow justified. Personally, I find that impossible to defend; you could have every prophet, saint, and deity descend from the heavens to ring celestial bells in her defense, and it still wouldn't move the needle for me. I have to say, Trier simply didn't win me over. 🤷

I’ll most likely end up watching Medea—though, to be honest, I’ve never been much of a fan of judging films based on whether they belong to a specific series or a director's trilogy; I prefer to let each individual work stand entirely on its own merits. Right now, I'm deep into... 🙏Sidney Lumet 🙏Honestly, it’s kind of wild—this guy just can't seem to make a bad movie, at least based on the handful I've managed to sit through. I've got *The Verdict* lined up next, though there's a decent chance I might end up watching *Medea* instead.

goldenhound32 said:And what evidence, precisely, do you have to support such a claim?

Well, look at how everything she discusses in her dialogue—though if you ask me, they’re more like intense monologues—actually comes to fruition. It all plays out right before your eyes, and then, in a final stroke of cosmic irony, even God shows up to prove He’s real.🤦

goldenhound32 said:I didn't interpret it that way... what we have in the film is one unstable individual who believes she's speaking with God, and because of her nature, a massive amount of nonsense happens to her.

And where exactly did you get the idea that the director is suggesting this behavior is desirable?

First off, he concludes by showing that she really *was* speaking with God—which is precisely the central tension the movie forces us to question. Secondly, the logical fallout is that Bess is essentially compelled to submit to God's demands. Now, I wouldn't say she *has* to in a literal sense, but within the confines of Trier's little fantasy, she absolutely does. You argue that all this nonsense happens to her "because of who she is," but the reality is that she is who she is because Trier wrote her that way, specifically to demonstrate that her behavior stems from following divine commands. And I mean actual, legitimate ones!

Where am I getting the idea that he’s suggesting this is desirable? It’s exactly what I pointed out earlier. By the very end of the film, he passes an ethical judgment on everything that has transpired by essentially saying: "God approves."

hiddenhound3 said:I find myself compelled to offer my own reflections regarding Lars's muses.

In my estimation, his body of work should be viewed through the lens of rebellion; he acts as a modern Don Quixote who has chosen women as the primary vessel for his defiance against societal norms. His muses are nothing short of captivating figures, 🙏 🙏 🙏 ranging from the witch depicted in Antichrist, to the devout Bess, and ultimately to the mother who kills her own children—Medea. His portrayal of women within the framework of society is so piercingly realistic that it becomes painful to witness. Is it not evident that his female characters serve as spiritual successors to Anna Karenina or Madame Bovary? They are mythical beings imbued with profound archetypal and symbolic significance.

Every one of his muses is a warrior—a formidable fighter. While many critics accuse him of misogyny, I perceive the exact opposite within his cinema; I see a profound adoration and an immense sense of reverence for women.

It sounds as if you believe that being a warrior is a virtue in and of itself. 🤷
He places that combativeness within the context of a struggle defined by men. Even war criminals were likely passionate warriors who simply followed the orders of superiors commanding them to commit atrocities. But that kind of warfare is inherently immoral. In the same vein, the female submission to men here is repulsive, yet through the lens of Trier, it is justified... for the sake of a "higher purpose."

goldenhound32 said:I'm not entirely sure what it is that bothers you so much. Is it the idea that characters like our protagonist don't actually exist in the real world, or does it simply grate on you that Trier chooses to include such figures in his films at all? 😕

If you're looking for a film about strong women, just watch G.I. Jane. 👍

I’ve already laid out exactly what bugs me about this. If Jesus hadn't ultimately triumphed, his story would possess a genuine, gut-wrenching sense of tragedy. But because he did, all that intense suffering gets stripped of its weight; it just becomes a functional means to an end. It’s a similar dynamic with the way people view the narrative in *dancer in the dark*. Just as the work of Jesus is traditionally hailed as this brave, ultimate example of goodness—though I personally disagree, but let's stay focused—Bess is framed as "good" simply because she allowed herself to be degraded by men. It’s that specific, hollowed-out version of virtue. Trier makes that exact point clear by the end of the film. Even the presence of God in the movie seems intended to drive home that very observation.

All this talk about "strong women" feels completely misplaced here. That wasn't my point at all. My critique was that the film had genuine potential, but its objective wasn't to explore the dichotomy between weak or strong women; rather, it framed weakness and submissiveness as something desirable. And frankly, that’s what makes it so nauseating.

Roger Long67 said:There is a really unique perspective within film criticism suggesting that von Trier's trilogy—comprised of Breaking the Waves, dancer in the dark, and Dogville—is actually a tribute to female goodness. In his films, the women are incomparably stronger and more resilient than the men; they are willing to endure selfless suffering and noble sacrifice, drawing their strength from a kind of raw, honest love. He portrays this in such a visceral, moving way—which, I have to admit, is a testament to how brilliantly von Trier develops his heroines. Granted, the process is often grueling and exhausting to watch, but interestingly enough, the end always seems to justify the means. E. Watson, Björk, and N. Kidman are nothing short of masterful. If this is indeed an expression of cheap Christian morality and petty chauvinism, then so be it.

Of course it is. In this film, women are essentially subjugated to men, existing merely to fulfill their twisted fantasies. There is absolutely nothing touching about trying to mask blatant chauvinism and primitivism behind religious messaging. It feels like Trier is attempting a bit of a bluff here; he knows the only way to justify such an injustice is to package it as a spiritual truth for a gullible audience. Since that’s exactly who he’s targeting—people looking for a cinematic catharsis who will swallow whatever is served to them—it isn't much trouble for him to pull off such a stunt.

You (much like Trier himself) seem to measure female goodness by how much it serves the men in their lives. Yeah, that sounds like small-minded chauvinism to me.

The movie operates on this incredibly shallow level of Christian morality, which ultimately dictates how women are permitted to exist within its world. To make matters even worse, it actually expects the audience to swallow this entire setup as some sort of rationalized necessity. It’s basically saying: let the women suffer, because their reward will be waiting for them in heaven.

Now, one could argue that the film is simply presenting this as a critique of the primitive environment they live in—that Bessina's fate serves as a commentary on the crushing nature of such an isolated way of life. That’s a possibility, I suppose, but the film doesn't just paint the townspeople as being needlessly cruel to women; it also presents her husband as someone with deeply pathological demands. Therefore, you can't really frame this as a simple critique of a closed community.

And as for that ending? 🤮
It feels like a calculated attempt to appease the small-minded, religious middle class. Since the film fails to justify all the absolute nonsense occurring throughout the plot, it resorts to a convenient deus ex machina. I find myself wondering why so many critics actually praised this piece. It’s likely because they belong to that exact same social stratum and are desperate to appear "spiritual." In reality, the conclusion completely guts any artistic potential the film might have had—even if E. Watson delivers an absolutely stellar performance—and reduces the whole thing to nothing more than some Christianized, preachy trash.

Well, thank goodness I didn't try to predict how the rest of the movie would unfold. Regarding the discussion about the scene at the parents' house—it hits exactly where it needs to. To start with, the tension is absolutely palpable when Otilia is left completely in the dark about what's happening to her roommate. Then, you have this biting portrayal of a small-minded, provincial mentality within the family (and honestly, the wider community too). Without that layer, the film’s themes would feel incredibly narrow. It’s also quite fascinating to watch the creeping influence of capitalism manifest through all those various consumer products. 😁

I saw someone on the forum suggesting this was some kind of feminist "chick flick." ☕
Really? Are we seriously going to interpret that irresponsible, almost ghost-like roommate as some short-haired, unshaven lesbian running around without a bra? 🙄

It’s funny how ridiculous that sounds, though perhaps it’s actually quite profound in its stupidity.

As for the actual abortion itself, the film refuses to take a side. On one hand, it exposes a horrifyingly repressive system, and on the other, it shows the recklessness of the students involved. Because of that balance, there isn't really any ground to stand on for a biased interpretation, which I personally think is a strength; it avoids any sort of partisan shouting match and allows for a cold, rational observation of the events.

That shot where the fetus is peeking out from under the towel felt entirely unnecessary and unearned. It felt as if the director was just reaching for a cheap shock tactic in the style of Lynch.

In any case, it’s a solid piece of filmmaking.

No, I wasn't the one getting banned; you must be thinking of some other user on here. 🤷

As for this whole business about reading up on things—well, I suppose people do it just so they can keep spewing that same old garbage about "war criminals" over there. Honestly, by all means, carry on and enjoy wallowing in that kind of rhetoric.

The folks over at The New York Times certainly know the drill, which is why they tend to mimic those kinds of posts... though that really just says everything you need to know about their intellect compared to others...

Mimic what kind of posts? 🤣
Mine? LOL, I don't even post there. But then again, you have a point; I can see people imitating my (very rare) comments and gravitating toward that nonsense about "war criminals." Back in the day, you’d find that stuff alongside antisemitic rants on every digital corner. Actually, they probably still exist, but I don't browse nearly as much these days, so I don't notice it quite as often.

Alright, maybe I went a bit overboard there, but let’s be honest: no one with a shred of sanity can engage in a civil conversation alongside those types—those self-styled heroes clinging to their nineties glory days. You don't even need to look far; just glance at the polls on that specific subreddit during a presidential election cycle, and you'll get a very clear, very disturbing picture of the demographic we're dealing with. That post above? It’s really just a vivid illustration of the kind of sludge they're peddling.

And I truly appreciate your thoughts regarding the moderation team over at The New York Times, as well as the users posting there; it’s incredibly polite of you, though frankly, it says much more about your own character than it does about ours.

My take is backed up by the data from the polls on that subreddit. We are talking about relics from the nineties barbarians who have somehow found a platform for their venom on the digital pages of The New York Times. It’s the only way they could ever find a foothold—with the blessing of the moderators. Cheers!👍

Even though this has become the status quo, and even though I have absolutely zero desire to post anything within the fascist echo chamber over at The New York Times sub-section, I find myself wondering if we really need to tolerate this specific brand of rhetoric:

I certainly recognize that this particular style of communication fits perfectly with the worldview held by the moderators and the regular users over there, but surely it’s common sense that blatant trolling and outright insults should be scrubbed from the platform? Personally, I’m not exactly a fan of Joan Didion and I disagree with her on just about everything, yet it would never even cross my mind to spout such mindless nonsense. Every single time I happen to wander into that section, you simply can't escape that kind of vitriol; it’s as if using some crude, hateful slur is the absolute pinnacle of civilization for the moderators and the community they’ve cultivated there—which explains why most people with half a brain stay far away from that corner of the site. 🤷

If I even knew what question you were actually asking, let alone the answer...

Look, you’re really the only one here playing the philosopher with all this "why" and "fundamentally why" business. Wouldn't it be much simpler to just admit you don't grasp the mechanics behind Newton's first law instead of spinning these grand theories? That would be a perfectly respectable answer; nobody is expected to have an answer for everything, nor is it even possible. Someone else could have easily weighed in on the thread by simply saying, "The answer to your question is unknown." That’s fine. But to toss out accusations of philosophizing, indulging in this pseudo-intellectual "fundamental why" nonsense, and then slamming the thread shut when no actual forum rules were broken? It's a bit much.

As for people weeping over being insulted by moderators, please, don't make me laugh. Let me remind you: the moderators over at Reddit and clearly over at the IRS are the only ones who need group therapy sessions just to console one another. Honestly, the only thing that amuses me is seeing how a bunch of unformed kids—hardly even on the threshold of maturity—can end up in charge of moderation.