Posts by Gerald Jackson48

I don't hit the movie theater all that often, but I have to say, my last trip was pretty rough. It wasn't even about people's phones glowing in my face or anything like that—it was just an overall unpleasant experience.

Don't get me wrong, though; I'm totally fine with the snacks and drinks. Popcorn and a good movie are basically a perfect match for me.

It’s pretty cliché and honestly kind of mid, but it’s worth a watch just because the production design is actually solid. You can tell they put a lot of work into the sets.

I've been running so low on free time lately that I end up pushing my movies to late at night. The problem is, I almost always pass out within the first thirty minutes.

It’s a bit ridiculous. One single movie ends up stretching across several nights, even though I’d much rather just sit down and knock them out all at once.

frozengull94 said:Man, I know all these usernames..
It’s perfect timing too. This thread started right as this whole new forum took shape..
Before this, it was just the old IMF forum over on that tech site..
Hardly anyone was online back then. Just a handful of people really getting into the forums and discovering what the internet is all about..

Someone please delete this thread..
😁

Seriously though, this thread is legendary. 🍿

neongull93 said:Nezz.
The only thing I’m really seeing lately—not just here, but in the general public too—is this growing vibe where people want street justice instead of letting the courts handle it.
Basically, by losing faith in our legal system, we're actually making it worse and driving more innocent folks into the prison system.
Plus, you gotta wonder if anyone even comes out of prison a better person, or if they just come out exactly the same—or honestly, probably worse.

Yeah, this usually happens during those massive political and economic crises when folks just lose faith in our institutions.

With how things are set up in America today, it’s hard to say people come out better, though I guess there's a tiny bit of truth to it in some cases.

neongull93 said:If I remember correctly, this video is what really got me thinking about starting this thread.

Plus, I was watching *Mystic River* on TV the other night—really heavy stuff.
The big question that keeps hitting me is... how can you actually trust a system that ends up locking up innocent people?
I mean, if the system itself is fundamentally broken, why do we assume that people who don't play by the rules aren't going to find ways to frame someone completely blameless?
The USA has really gone off the rails lately.
I recently watched this video about a woman who lied about being assaulted.
With zero evidence—just her word that it happened—they sentenced an innocent man to 20 years.
She waited five whole years before finally coming clean.
Then there was that other case where a woman actually beat herself up just to pin domestic abuse on her husband.
Luckily, she was caught on camera.
It just goes to show—if a regular person can pull the wool over the system's eyes, imagine how much easier it is for actual criminals.

Look, no social system is ever going to be perfect. They all have flaws. It's just how things work.

The system isn't intentionally broken just to help criminals or toss innocent people in jail. That usually only happens in those totalitarian regimes overseas.

Got any actual suggestions on how to fix it?

Raymond Adams3 said:So, being an idiot is always acceptable? Even if it means driving dozens of families straight into poverty?

It doesn't have to be "welcome." But it isn't necessarily a crime either.

Though, honestly, around here, I bet we see way more of that other kind—where crime and big business just shake hands. We shouldn't pretend otherwise.

David Robinson26 said:Better for whom, specifically, or for what purpose?

It’s better for society as a whole since crime rates drop. Sure, it sucks for the individual who gets wrongly convicted.

It’s not just about a few bad apples being crooked. Sometimes the entire system itself is corrupt. When that happens, you don't just fix a person; you have to overhaul or completely tear down the whole structure.

The real headache, though, is figuring out how to actually spot them.

Raymond Adams3 said:And criminals are human beings too!

I’ve met people involved in crime who became dear friends, and it makes you realize they’re just regular people.

Unfortunately, laws are written by those in power, and it’s naive to expect them to write anything against their own interests. How do you define someone in a small town who intentionally guts a local factory and leaves dozens of families out on the street?

Sure, they are people. But they're people who made a conscious choice to break the law and screw over everyone else just to line their own pockets. I mean, there might be a few exceptions where people do it for some "greater good," but then we can argue about what those goals actually are.

Generally speaking, the person running a factory isn't the one writing the legislation—unless you're looking at a totalitarian regime, and even then, it's not a guarantee. You can wreck a business by breaking the law, or just by being an absolute disaster at management without breaking any rules at all.

At the end of the day, I'd rather see ten criminals and one innocent person behind bars than the other way around. It’s harsh, but that’s just how it works.

copperhound12 said:

Dr. Josef Mengele (Springfield, March 16, 1911 - Boston, February 7, 1979),

Helen and Pearl, twin sisters who managed to survive the horrors of the death camps at Auschwitz, share their memories of the infamous doctor Josef Mengele in a new book.
- He was tall and incredibly handsome. Honestly, he should have been an actor or something, rather than a killer of Jews. And those boots of his... they were so polished you could practically use them as mirrors.
They cleaned them three times a day. He’d switch up his uniforms constantly, too. He always looked his best—Helen recalls.
- Yes—Pearl confirms. Some of the female prisoners actually fell in love with him—Helen says, remembering the monstrous Nazi doctor Josef Mengele, who would frequently stroll past the endless train cars arriving at Auschwitz, deciding the fates of thousands with a single glance.

The twins, Helen and Pearl, were 23 years old when they were brought to Auschwitz from Czechoslovakia along with their father, brother, sister, and her children. They were torn away from their family, who were sent straight to the gas chambers, and placed in the barracks. Fighting just to stay alive, they spent their time moving lifeless bodies and cleaning out the gas chambers.
- They would take our blood every single day. One assistant would draw blood from one side, while another would inject us with something we still don't even know what it was. We will never know—they recount.
Despite everything, they claim Mengele was never cruel to them. He acted almost paternal. - We knew he wouldn't hurt us. We just knew—the two sisters say in unison.

- Because he was so handsome. Just forget everything else—Helen explains. He was, she adds, like an angel. - We were friends with him. Truly—Pearl adds to her twin sister's words.
- He was brilliant. I'm not joking—Helen adds, describing how Mengele would pat children on the head, only to send them to the crematorium moments later. He would order the testicles of twins—his favorite subjects for research—to be removed, or kill one twin if the other died.
(Source: The New York Times)
_______________

Questions...☕

Even now—even after all these years—I simply cannot shake this horror. It is an undeniable, gaping paradox of evil; this descent into the absolute depths of the human soul (reaching the level of a beast). This conversation between sisters about an "evil angel"—Josef Mengele. I realize many people will dismiss this or speak flippantly—saying that elderly women or young women literally lost their minds; that it was a necessary psychological defense mechanism they built just to avoid going insane from the terror of Auschwitz.

But—but there is something deeper hiding in here, isn't there?
His necrophilic character (from the Greek word *nekros*, meaning corpse, dead man, or inhabitant of the underworld. In Latin, *nex* or *necs* refers to violent death or murder. To be clear, *nekros* doesn't refer to the act of dying, but to the corpse, the cadaver, or the murdered person whose death is visibly distinct from natural passing. "To die" or "death" carries a different meaning; it refers not to the corpse, but to the act of dying itself. In Greek, *thanatos*; in Latin, *mors*. The words "die" and "death" trace back to the Indo-European root *dheu, dhou* (E. Fromm, The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, Vols. I & II)).
Man possesses the psychology of a predator. It is easy to teach humans how to kill, yet it is incredibly difficult to cultivate customs that oppose it. Many people find pleasure in watching other human beings suffer, or enjoy killing animals; public beatings and torture are common across various cultures. (S.L. Washburn)

Do you share this feeling with me? How do you—really—feel after reading this?

2.. Sometimes people try to argue that sadistic perversion is actually healthy, claiming it serves as an innocent outlet for the sadistic tendencies that are supposedly inherent in everyone. If you follow that twisted logic to its conclusion, then the guards at the Nazi concentration camps were actually being kind to their prisoners, just so they could vent those inner sadistic urges through sexual outlets. (-). (E. Fromm, *The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness*, Vol. I/II).

So, was Josef Mengele actually "kind" (if you listen to his female prisoner-sisters) because he was simply relieving himself of his own sadistic impulses? Or did his necrophilic character truly prevail (which is that malignant form of the anal character—occurring before sadism, and certainly before necrophilia)? Or perhaps he just possessed some sort of (evil) masculine charisma ?

3. The new wave of fascists won't show up wearing swastikas or running death camps; instead, they’ll arrive with smiling faces and, if they can help it, their very own TV shows. Those are the 21st-century fascists, and they are the ones who will take control. "(M. Moore, director of "Fahrenheit 11/9"—an allusion to the classic "Fahrenheit 451" by Ray Bradbury—referring to the temperature (451 degrees Fahrenheit) at which book pages burn best, which is the temperature at which freedom itself burns away)." What exactly is M. Moore getting at here?

Screw Mengele. Choose life.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Not necessarily... sure they exist, but in the broadest sense—like in Eco-villages—they’re actually the minority.

Living with anyone at any given moment isn't easy—it takes a massive amount of tolerance for differences and emotional stability, which most people just don't have. You see it all the time on internet forums where people end up fighting over basically nothing.

For sure. Some communities actually figure out how to manage conflict—either through charismatic leaders or some kind of democratic consensus-building.
Those are the ones that actually last... provided they actually have a vision... a clear purpose and something to offer the members who stay.
The author compares their "success rate" to tech startups... though I guess nobody's questioning their actual point.

I'm skeptical of these "carefully designed and well-thought-out" alternatives. Communism was "carefully designed and well-thought-out" too, and we all know how that turned out in practice.

I get that it sounds like some "drawing board society" and the communism comparisons are hard to dodge... but there's a huge difference between joining a group voluntarily and being "forced" into one against your will.
Plus, the size of these groups (maybe a couple hundred people max) allows for a totally different management style—like direct democracy—than what you'd find in a country.

On the other hand, some people just find themselves at home in that lifestyle, so hey, whatever floats your boat.

Yeah, it really just comes down to what you want and what you're into...

This could be the kicker. Some data suggests it sits right around 10 percent.

Joseph Bailey41 said:It’s like that old saying goes: "Hell is other people." When you pack a bunch of different personalities into one house—unless they’re actual blood relatives—they eventually start getting on each other's nerves and digging up all sorts of subconscious baggage. It was especially messy with my group back then, since we were all unconventional twenty-somethings. Everyone would bring friends over for a night or two, someone would bring certain substances into the house, or someone would show up under the influence because, well, it was a "free zone." That casual "hey" quickly turned into "sweetie, what did you take?" 🙄 (Just a bit of context—this was the late nineties, so you could find just about anything on the streets back then.)

The older, more serious crowd I met didn't talk much about why everything was falling apart, but it was obvious they were driving each other crazy and simply couldn't live under the same roof anymore. One guy, who was pretty high-profile (a culture creator, social entrepreneur, life coach, and generalist), kept insisting that the group dynamic was failing because two other people I knew—a married couple—stuck too close together. To me, that sounded like total nonsense. All those communication techniques used to force group bonding, or the constant insistence on reaching a consensus for completely trivial decisions... honestly, the whole thing felt exhausting and forced. I think I would have been screaming and running for the exit after just two days. It had a bit of a cult-like vibe, even if there wasn't a real spiritual connection between them, at least from what I could tell.

In my opinion, these utopian circles often suffer from too many ego battles, power struggles over status, petty fights over government grants, and a sort of rigid, dogmatic mentality. It's all quite far from being a utopia.

That's pretty much it. Even blood relatives fight when they're stuck together, so you can imagine what happens with strangers. You see this play out on screen all the time in reality shows like Big Brother, farma, or whatever other junk is on TV. Conflict is constant, and it happens fast.

Sure, those shows pick colorful characters because viewers would get bored without the drama, but it still says something about the general state of the human psyche.

Group therapy attempts like that are great in theory, but old habits die hard, and people rarely change who they really are.

In my experience, these kinds of collectives mostly just attract eccentrics and folks carrying a whole lot of "emotional baggage." For them to actually work long-term, you really have to make exceptions to that rule.

Let’s be real: living with anyone at any point in life isn't easy. It takes a massive amount of tolerance for different personalities and emotional stability, which most people just don't have. You can see this clearly on internet forums, where people end up fighting over even the most neutral topics every single day.

I’m pretty skeptical about these "carefully planned and well-thought-out" alternatives. I mean, communism was also carefully planned and well-thought-out, and we all know how much of a disaster those attempts turned out to be in practice.

On the flip side, some people truly find their groove living that way. So, what can you say? If someone wants to go for it, more power to them.

electriccanyon26 said:For me, it's the ego that wears thin.

Exactly.

Maybe directing works as a kind of therapy for him, but as a viewer, I'm just not digging what he's putting out there.

I'm gonna skip this one. Look, I respect von Trier, but I've honestly had enough of that heavy-handed misanthropy he puts in every single movie he makes.

Wait, is that Mandy actually Manda Cherokee Perić? 😁

analogbear40 said:Uh.......you've really got me worked up here......😁

When was the last time I saw that specific shade.......if memory serves, it was the first Blade back in '98.......(I'm talking about that specific red vibe and all that......) 😛

We aren't even talking about the same red, anyway. Just watch Mandy at your own risk. 😁

I started watching it late last night, but I crashed pretty fast. Did the director just decide to dump a whole bucket of red paint over the entire movie or what?

wiredfalcon2 said:Science was around long before the Bible ever existed.

Sure, in some kind of primitive way. We aren't talking about the modern scientific method that popped up later to shape everything we know today.

But honestly, that's beside the point. It’s not even a real debate when you consider that people have been looking at Bible stories as allegories for way longer than just the last 500 years.

wiredfalcon2 said:That’s exactly my point. You believers take something science has already debunked as total nonsense and just rebrand it as an "allegory" so you can claim "nobody actually believes that." Give me a break. Five hundred years ago, they would've burned you at the stake just for suggesting the Earth wasn't made in seven days, and nobody would've been sitting around talking about how it was all just a symbolic version. Look, if faith tells us that God wrote the Bible through his followers, then it's all or nothing. Either it's all truth, or God isn't real. You can't just pick and choose which parts are literal and which parts are "allegory" depending on whatever way suits the current generation of believers. Why would God bother telling the world He made the Earth in seven days if He didn't? Why say humans lived 700 or 800 years ago if they didn't? Why say a burning bush could talk if it couldn't? Why say Moses parted the sea if he didn't? Why say the Earth is the center of the universe if it isn't? Yeah, etcetera, etcetera...

See, that's the logic "per se," but you guys won't touch it. And since you refuse to deal with it, we end up stuck talking about "values" and "perspectives" just to try and bring you down to the level of your own delusion.

People were talking about biblical stories being allegories way more than 500 years ago.

Justin Baker6 said:The internet is nothing but a cheap imitation.

Materialists are out there actually building what spiritualists only dream about.