Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

human_murda

Regulars
  • Posts

    257
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

human_murda last won the day on March 11 2020

human_murda had the most liked content!

3 Followers

Previous Fields

  • Country
    India
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

2116 profile views

human_murda's Achievements

Member

Member (4/7)

23

Reputation

  1. Avoiding the fact that they're (outdated) stereotypes of two nationalities. I'm just going to say that stereotypes don't need to be verbally explicit and leave it at that. As a different example, this is clearly a stereotype of a group of people (it does not refer to an individual) :
  2. Well, there are the conical hats and turbans (among other things), which are used as stereotypes. They're not mental characteristics, but they're still stereotypes. Also, the drawing on the left could represent individuals, while the drawing on the right doesn't. Caricatures of what/who? You're basically just saying that they're caricatures of caricatures ("caricature of two ridiculous faces") avoiding the big turban in the room here.
  3. Non-Americans only care about America? Okay, you probably can't show every abstraction with a still image, but you can show some abstractions (including stereotypes) with still images. Do you think there's any difference between the following two images?
  4. It isn't. It's an abstraction. Which Chinese boy (in reality) does it refer to? It could be anyone. "A picture of an individual Chinese boy who happens to eat this way" would have to be a literal photograph of a Chinese boy. It is an individual copy of that drawing though. That's not how Math works (unless you're just talking about the US). I actually live outside India now (for studies), although that's only been two years. However, I've seen the "We wuz kangz and shiet" memes, debates about race and intelligence, how White people are going going extinct, how Australian Aborigines are not human and all of those things while in India (and not on Stormfront, but on sites like Reddit and YouTube. It's mostly coming from Americans but also from South Africans, Australians, Canadians and British people who cared about American politics and are trying to "defend America"). I was raised in a small town of 16000 people in a lower middle class family (although we're more upper middle class now). I normally wouldn't have to listen to all of this BS but access to the internet (and knowledge of English) is enough, without which I wouldn't have encountered Ayn Rand anyway (I saw her on an online booklist).
  5. Well, you know that now, because I gave a source. But if you were just observing patterns about casting in movies, you could easily come up with conspiracy theories about the alt-right controlling Hollywood. I never said that non-(White men) should be cast because they were discriminated against by Hollywood historically. I'm just saying that your White victimhood narrative doesn't hold up. You came up with the claim that "White men were getting erased from existence". And you have previously made claims such as "There is more to discuss about the increasing assault on, and the self-abnegating guilt by, one specific race and specific gender - i.e. white men - wherever they live - racialistically motivated, also". You keep making the same claims on a lot of threads and also claim that other people are making everything about gender and race. You're the one making the claim that White men, as a collective, are assaulted and victimized everywhere on the planet.
  6. Despite the existence of Katie Dippold's twitter page, Paul Feig and Ivan Reitman are still men. Who are they taking revenge against? Also, the Ghostbusters movie is about women in media. BLM is irrelevant here and doesn't prove any point about women taking revenge against men (the director and one of the producers are men). Sure, there are women in the team but that's not relevant to the point that these movies are supposedly ways of taking revenge against men. And they could have written totally different and better stories with pansexual, brown, female leads but they didn't. It's easy to talk about how imaginary movies would have been better, but given how the 2016 movie was a lazy sequel, they would have produced a shitty movie with straight, white male leads. You are blaming the problems of the movie on the fact that they have non- straight, White male leads (or the politics behind it) when the actual problem is that they just used that as a selling point and did not try to be original. They tried to sell the movie with politics but the problem is not the politics, the problem is that they were lazy (and they would have been lazy no matter who the leads were). Similar stuff could be said about the recent Aladdin movie. It was a remake and wasn't that well done (from the Genie's CGI to the costumes looking home-made to the casting). Jasmine was specifically supposed to be Persian, but they did not cast someone Middle-Eastern (and she was probably the only famous Middle-Eastern character in Western media who wasn't a terrorist, apart from Jesus). Is this because the casting was done by the alt-right trying to make Jasmine whiter? No, it was because Naomi Scott (who doesn't look Persian) was more famous and could sing and because the film was a remake and kind of lazy. The film wasn't bad because Disney was infiltrated by the alt-right or because of politics. It was bad because it was a lazy remake. There are also examples on the opposite end of the spectrum, like Hollywood casting light-skinned actors to appeal to China. Has the alt-right infiltrated Hollywood?
  7. Who is "they"? Progressives don't make movies. There's no group of leftists sitting around and deciding whether some movie is going to be economically viable. These decisions are made by Studio executives who determine if there's going to enough interest in a movie to generate a profit. Sometimes, political topics generate enough interest (like the case of the Ghostbusters movie) even if they're crap. And these are not flagship movies for a Studio. They just generate some passive income (like remakes of Video Games), while they focus on bigger projects. They're the equivalent of card games made by well known gaming studios. And these movies are not made by leftists. Bigger projects that are not lazy cash-grabs and have different leads are the Star Wars series, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (the lead isn't Peter Parker) or even a video game like The Last of Us 2. These are well made films (and games) and no, they're not made by "progressives".
  8. Oh no. Anyway, Revenge by who against who? These movies are usually made by White men. The 2016 Ghostbusters movie was directed by a White male. Are these White men seeking revenge against White men? They're just using non-White, non-male characters as human shields to deflect blame and allow race obsessed people like you to wallow in White victimhood. These movies are like corporations trying to cash in on Pride month. If anybody is a parasite, it's the directors and producers trying to cash in on political issues, not the "progressives" or leftists or whoever. They're using your emotional investment in identity politics (and belief in White male victimhood or, alternatively, non-White, non-male victimhood) to make a profit. These movies would have been total crap even if they had straight, White male leads catering to poor, White, victimized males. Also, you're acting as if casting straight White males is somehow natural and unintentional and non-deliberate and has no politics or power play behind it; as though non-Whites and non-males were never "cancelled from existence" in Hollywood. Also, before you accuse me of being "racialist", like you inevitably do in an attempt to victimize yourself more: I have never, in the history of posting on this forum started a discussion on race. I have only made posts about race as a response to White people on this forum making racial comments about non-White people like me. So no need to start a tirade about how my posts are "racialist" or any of that non-sense. And I generally don't care about race because it's not a politicized topic in India. It's usually Americans (and people who care about American politics, and maybe politics in the West generally) who go on and on about race. Race is not important in the politics of most of Asia.
  9. That is a questionable claim. Evidence to the contrary are the infinite amount of companies selling skin lightening creams in India and abroad, creating the gigantic fair skin business. These companies bank on the irrational insecurities of people. The adverts for these products generally show people getting fairer skin with these creams and suddenly getting hired or married. Examples are fair and lovely (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8- 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 and many more), which was the og brand for self hatred, Pond's white beauty (white beauty series 2 3), Fair and handsome (1 2 3 4 5 6 7), L'Oreal white perfect (1) and infinitely many more. There are corporations that promote "accepting yourself" in the West while these same exact companies promote "dark is inferior" products in India and elsewhere. Industries, such as bollywood and other film industries in India also bank on "whiteness" (or preference for a higher caste). Dark actresses find it difficult to find jobs in India. This is also present in other countries: almost all media personalities in Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand, Mexico, etc favor "whiteness". Even in the US, a lot of "black" media personalities are light skinned compared to the black population of USA, simply because that is more profitable. "whiteness" or fairness is considered aspirational (there's this "we can be white too" attitude that is sold by these companies). Indian designers only hire fair skinned models in India and would claim that the idea that "dark is doomed" is more profitable and it's not their job to change it. Modeling competitions only have light skinned people in India. Directors don't hire dark skinned people because it's not profitable (in India). Even roles of darker skinned characters are given to lighter skinned actors because darker actors are not bankable in India. The few that are hired may be cast as poor or rural or as servants. People who work in the industry usually deny it. Some delusional North Indians also deny it by saying that the majority of North Indians are light skinned (they're not) and that these products are marketed towards them. Even a lot of music made in India promotes the idea that "white is glamorous" because it's more profitable (For eg, "chittiya kalaiya" or "my white wrists"). All of this is in a country in which at least 90% of the people are dark skinned. No one would hire you in India when "image" is at stake because if you're darker, you're not "presentable". You can't be an air hostess or an actor or a salesperson or any get hired for any job which involves the "image" of a brand or customer service if you're dark skinned in India. There are things such as "white monkey jobs", which bank on the soft power of white people (or light skinned people), to sell things. Racism can be pretty profitable (some industries, such as skin bleaching, probably would not exist without racism. It may still exist, but would be much smaller). While I don't think capitalism is inherently racist, the idea that capitalism would "solve" racism is stupid. It requires societal change that may not be tied to the free market.
  10. Are you suggesting that a police (C) arresting murderer (B) who killed victim (A) is an initiation of force? Clearly C was NOT there in the act of B against A, C was never attacked, and hence any use of force by C could not be retaliatory? You don't need to be personally victimized to use retaliatory force, especially when the victim is dead and could not possibly retaliate. The problem here is that the retaliatory force was carried out by a mindless mob, not the fact that retaliatory force was carried out at all, on somebody else's behalf, which is perfectly valid. Nope. Plenty of laws protect police who initiate the use of force. They're not acting independently of the police institution. (Of course, you could be arguing about some abstract, perfect police station that works this way, but this case is very specific).
  11. There's nothing particularly quantum mechanical about Noether's theorem (it was proven just before quantum mechanics was widely accepted). It applies to classical mechanics too.
  12. Also, this nonsense (of per capita emissions) is what international agreements are based on. No international agreement asks all countries to have identical emissions.
  13. Austere has a very limited negative connotation. dictionary.com defines "austere" as: 1) severe in manner or appearance; uncompromising; strict; forbidding 2) rigorously self-disciplined and severely moral; ascetic; abstinent 3) grave; sober; solemn; serious A terrorist should not be described as having a strict or extreme adherence to morality, even if the word has minor negative connotations.
  14. It's not just this. India and China are leading the world in reforestation and shifting to renewable energy (and India is a dirt poor country). The idea that USA (or western countries in general) is unjustly punished, especially in comparison to India is retarded. India hasn't even started to industrialize and these American morons are already blaming India for shit that hasn't happened yet. They should at least allow us to fuck shit up before blaming us.
×
×
  • Create New...