7
K-ASS
16d

I don’t give a shit about boycotting Mulan, I paid to watch this movie

And the movie is shit, so I genuinely ask people to not waste the money to watch it. It’s just so shit and such a waste of my time

Comments
  • 6
    That moment your convenience intersects with actual ethics.
  • 1
    I sail the high seas, and usenet so... lol
  • 4
    Live action + Disney + remake of existing move, WTF could you possibly be expecting?

    Hold on... that's $45 / month just to watch Mulan 🤦‍♂️Disney gone fucking nuts.
  • 0
    @SortOfTested what did I miss? What’s the ethical part?
  • 4
    @MySlugLikesSalt
    Star of Mulan is apparently in support of the Hong Kong police's actions against protestors.
  • 1
  • 3
    @SortOfTested I’m Chinese, so let me start with that

    So what happened at that airport was, the guy was surrounded by protesters at the time. Since the reporter had document that has the word police on it, they thought he was a cop from mainland. But everyone holding a Chinese passport has that word on it.

    The guy, after surrounded, said, I support police of Hongkong, you can beat me now. And he did got beat up, taken out by an ambulance. And this all happened in the airport he arrived.

    This event basically pissed of many Chinese people, they posted what he said: I support police of Hong Kong, you can beat me now, to support that guy.

    Look, what happened recently can be disturbing, but I think we are all just seeing one side of the story. There are more examples, there are stories you see from China’s side, there are stories you see from western’a side. It will be unwise to judge a matter based on one side’s story.
  • 2
    @C0D4 ok it’s not that expensive, it’s 30 dollar of one time payment, and you need 8 dollars for monthly subscription to Disney plus.

    But hey, you can pirate it now easily
  • 1
    @SortOfTested anyway, my point is, I don’t think the actress should be blamed for this. If you saw the video of the reporter, it is kinda disturbing
  • 2
    @K-ASS
    I don't support anything disney, so it's all rather irrelevant to me.
  • 0
    @SortOfTested yeah their greed is endless
  • 0
    @SortOfTested I mean, they don’t focus on being Disney and bring joy, their strategy now is just to buy anything that will bring them profit.

    Like, if you tell them that if you sacrifice babies, you have one in a hundred chance of getting one million, I guess they will just start paying people for the children
  • 0
    @SortOfTested and that's the whole reason for not watching the movie?
  • 1
    @iiii
    Because Disney sucks? Yes. That's the whole reason.
  • 0
    @SortOfTested no, I meant the message about actress. In my opinion mixing in politics is a bad choice.
  • 0
    @iiii
    You do you bossman. I have no dog in this fight, as previously stated.
  • 0
    @SortOfTested yeah I hate how politics is in the way of anything

    I want perfect communism, where people join together for the better good of humanity, not whose got bigger pp(political power)
  • 4
    @K-ASS impossible until humans stop being humans. Hive society is not in human code.
  • 1
    @ScribeOfGoD Yup! Saw "that" in my RSS feed this morning
    I'll check it out just in case
  • 1
    That’s why I don’t fucking read news.
  • 4
    I just read Disney so just follow the imaginary bouncing ball..

    🎼Let it go, let it go
    Can't hold it back anymore
    Let it go, let it go🎶
    Turn away and slam the door
    I don't care what they're going to say
    Let the storm rage on
    The cold never bothered me anyway🎵

    *Side turn, door slam*
  • 0
    Is it worth watching if its "free"?
  • 2
    @matt-jd You got nothing but time to waste, and can always stop at any moment.
  • 3
    @matt-jd technically yes, but let me describe the experience

    You ordered a pile of shit unknowingly. You take a bit and felt like it is shit, but since you liked some ingredient in it and paid for it you decided to keep eating, only to find out it is indeed a huge pile of shit and you forced yourself to finish that
  • 0
    @K-ASS Fuck communism in all it's forms
  • 0
    @12bitfloat communism is good on local level though.
  • 1
    @iiii Fuck no. Communism builds on collectivism which is the single worst philosophical idea you could possibly have
  • 0
    @12bitfloat eh? Radical individualist here?
  • 0
    @iiii Hell yeah
  • 0
  • 0
    @iiii You do know that literally all good values we hold -- democracy, human rights, equality of opportunity, presumption of innocence, freedom of expression and speech, the right to own property, etc. -- are direct results of individualism and fundamentally incompatible with collectivism, right?

    You do know that collectivism is the idea that lead to the murder of between 70 and 150 million people due to internal repression alone in old china and the udssr, right?
  • 0
    @12bitfloat the only thing i see is a poor brainwashed with US propaganda individual.
  • 0
    @iiii I'm not american nor do I particularly like their system. Western democracy is what I'm refering to and that originated in Great Britain.

    Also that's a piss poor (non) argument. Don't pull a @theabbie on me
  • 1
    @12bitfloat It feels so good to be a noun
  • 0
    @12bitfloat if someone responds with "commies = bad" then it's obvious they haven't done their homework.
  • 1
    @iiii I didn't just say commie = bad, I said commie = bad because this list of reasons.
    You don't seem to be able to dispute any of them that's why you are dodging the argument.

    Yeah I dislike commies and their authoritarian and muderous ideals. I quite like freedom and human rights
  • 0
    @iiii Is looking at EVERY implemetation of communism and the inevitable resulting disaster and blood bath enough home work? Or do I also have to look at the ZERO cases where it did work?
  • 0
    @12bitfloat I don't see a reason to dispute with a radically inclined individual. Experience says that's a waste of time.
  • 0
    @iiii Why don't you actually try to prove your point and THEN call me unreasonable when I don't accept any of the points

    You're literally not even able to state anything beyond "communism = good" yet you are calling me indoctrinated? Sounds legit...

    Someone who's actually convinced by their ideas should be atleast able to give a short paragraph about why it's good. At least put in that much effort
  • 0
    @12bitfloat am I obligated to prove anything to you? I don't think so.
  • 0
    @12bitfloat and you clearly cannot read if all you've got is "communism = good". Which proves my point of pointlessness of discussion.
  • 0
    @iiii No your not. It just makes you look like an utter fool not being able to back up your claims in an argument

    You were a large part of the thread about JavaScript yet you took absolutely nothing away from that? Like really?
  • 0
    @iiii Your ONLY statement about communism in this thread is "communism is good on local level though"... Yeah
  • 0
    @12bitfloat so now we are using profanity as a leverage for discussion? How smart and adult-like. Please, proceed alone.
  • 0
    @iiii "Fool" isn't profanity but a rather apt description of your attitude.

    Remember when your we're "getting the popcorn" in the JavaScript debate?
    Shouldn't throw stones and a glass house and all that lmao

    I do agree with you that you shouldn't argue with indoctrinated people. You can't convince someone who doesn't even understand the thing they are defending. At least I tried. Peace out
  • 1
    @12bitfloat alright alright, I want to weigh in this argument

    I know the idea of perfect communism is not achievable because it requires stripping away some level of freedom. And I said some level of freedom not all.

    The problem is, how much is subtle enough to not disturb people but can still do the good.

    I mean, think of a scenario you are in a messy room. How many objects can you not move before it pisses you off and feel like you don’t get to control your life, I think it is an interesting problem to try, but the result will vary from people to people.

    I mean, I’m after all, just tired of everything is a political game and people not even trying to work together, if hive mind can finally unite people as a whole, fuck it, hive mind it is.
  • 0
    @K-ASS I guess the problem isn't really just lack of freedom. Obviously you have to restrict freedom in any society.

    My main problem is the fundamental world view of communism -- collectivism. Instead of treating people on their merit as individuals (aka. individualism) you group them together based on some arbitrary facet (age, race, gender, economic class, etc.) and treat them as a group.

    THAT's evil. And that leads to tenths to hundreds of millonths of deaths.
    That's why I'm so opposed to communism.

    That said, I'm not at all against charity or social programs or other ways to help the less fortunate.
    Collectivism just isn't ever the solution no matter on what scale or in what form you try to implement it
  • 2
    @12bitfloat i haven't read so much of communism related books as you so my points might not weigh much.

    But i very much disagree on your point regarding our values coming from individualism and not society as a general. I am from India where culture and traditions are still respected so i think its right to say that a lot of our progress comes from the society and not on our own.

    Surely i agree that no forms of communism have been a successful example, but edison also failed 999 times before discovering the bulb. Maybe we(some society) would come up with a theory that is completely different from existing practices and that would work.

    But removing society and community values completely from a system would only result in selfish psychopaths and savages born without empathy. Oh wait, even animals have communal values.

    "सबका साथ , सबका विकास"
  • 1
    @2Large
    The Edison example is fiction in the vein of a 20 foot tall man chopping down redwoods, or George Washington not lying. Edison was in the mergers and acquisitions business. He used his capitalized advantage to buy out or bury his competition. He then used his money to write his mythology into the history books.

    Historically, the vast majority of advancement in humans came from uniquely talented people being identified and funded by wealthy, influential benefactors. That remained true even among modern communist schemes.

    The point he's attempting to make is that in the worst case scenarios of collectivism (those that derive from critical scarcity), it becomes indistinguishable from aristocracy as it's utlitiarian identity tribalism. If there is only enough food to feed some, those who are deemed "essential" are fed, and those who aren't die. Historically, that has shown itself to be consistently those who have fallen furthest from the preference of whatever structure holds the power.

    In early Soviet Russia that was the mentally ill, the poor and unskilled and those whose religion put them out of favor with the party. It was similar in China, but population and genetic homogeneity amongst the Han Chinese meant deprioritization divided along lines of the poor (primarily rural), followed by non-Han poor, and religious-*.

    Similarities are seen in present day India. The community segment that is benefitting has a radius falling outwards from alignment with the BJP. Hindus are directly profiting most in the new wave of changes (especially with government documents and IDs consolidating to Hindi), non-hindi literate Hindus less so, and religious and ethnic minorities on the far outside of the spectrum. Time will tell whether that rising tide lifts all boats.

    I don't agree that all collectivism is inherently bad, but it's not a unified system for progress either. As others have mentioned, it's effective at small scale in practice.
  • 1
    @SortOfTested "effective at small scale" is basically how humans can describe every currently know societal system. Every system crumbles when applied to large scale and transforms into a dystopia while being pretty effective for smaller groups of people. It seems like humans are inherently not suited to be in large groups.
  • 0
    @2Large Just like I stated in my comment I don't think that there is no place for collective action, culture or community. In fact these things are very important for a functioning, free society.

    But they have to be based on individualism. Helping the poor (poor invdividuals) is good. Collectivising all black people into the poor category and then universally privileging them is not only unjust to everyone else it's also very racist -- as you have to assume that all black people can't make it on their own and need hand outs.

    Collective action is collaborative work towards a shared goal, that is NOT collectivism, which is NEVER appropriate

    It's inherently evil and I don't care one bit under what pretense it's being implemented.

    I also didn't believe what @SortOfTested interpreted into my comment.
    I absolutely do believe that collectivism is ALWAYS evil, never mind the worst case.
    That's like saying "Nazi ideology isn't THAT bad until it's implemented". No it's ALWAYS bad
  • 2
    @12bitfloat
    We got a Godwin!
  • 0
    @12bitfloat there's a substantial error: you're equaling communism to collectivism, which is wrong. Your whole argument is based on communism being a synonym to collectivism, while it is only a part of one of the communistic ideas (Leninism) and there are many other ideas which do not incorporate collectivism as a base of society.
  • 0
    @SortOfTested Hard not to bring up the Nazis when talking about horrible ideas :P
  • 0
    @iiii Not all collectivism is communism but all communism is collectivism.

    Marxism and Leninism which are sorta related are also both examples of collectivist ideas.

    Leninism is about the "working class" against the "capitalists" as if these are two distinct collections of people that are inevitably in war with each other for power. Guess what that is => collectivism
  • 0
    @12bitfloat are you sure you've got the relation between those correct?
  • 0
    Because people seem to misunderstand this:

    Collectivism isn't an economic or social system. It's not on the same level as communism or socialism or capitalism

    It's a fundamental (literally) way of interpreting the world and interactions with other humans.

    I guess you could say it's at it's most basic form about what concept or entity you ascribe divine value to (I'm not kidding, that's actually what it boils down to)
  • 0
    @iiii I might be slightly off on the relationship between Leninism and Marxism but the fact that they are all collectivist ideologies is pretty clear.
    Mind correcting me?
  • 0
    @12bitfloat i mean your statement that, mathematically speaking, communism is a subset of collectivism.
  • 0
    @iiii I guess you can put it that way. I believe communism is built on top of the ideas of collectivism
  • 0
    @12bitfloat maybe you think that way because you don't really know much about that school of ideas?

    Because as far as I can see, not every communistic idea is based on idea of collectivism, but mostly on ideas of communalism.
  • 1
    also, FOSS is a form of communism 😉
  • 0
    @iiii GPL is certainly likable to communism and I don't like GPL at all.
    MIT is true freedom!
  • 0
    @12bitfloat MIT is there as well. One don't have to force the FOSness. I did not mean GPL in particular, but the whole idea of FOSS in general.
  • 0
    @iiii Communism is enforced equality though.
    Open source software is voluntary cooperation which is perfectly compatible with capitalism, in fact that's exactly what capitalism is: Voluntary cooperation
  • 0
    @12bitfloat except communism as an idea is not that black and white and not about total equality (especially considering there's no one way of equality in relation to human beings). A certain school is black and white though.

    And, btw, I've had opportunity to speak with those who lived in the USSR. Not with the very old people, but those who are the next generation after (around 40-50 y/o). And they say... It wasn't bad in 70-80s. It was pretty decent and not really worse than today with all current "abundance".
  • 2
    @iiii Communism is of course not black and white but it certainly is black and white in the fact that it enforces equality. If that's not part of communism then you could literally call everything including capitalism communism

    I think what you really mean is collaboration. And I agree with you that that's a good thing.

    Aslong as it's not enforced that everyone is equal and aslong as we ascribe (the same amount of) intrinsic value to each individual and based on that grant them human rights and the freedom to possess property and to trade with each other, then I'm happy

    If you think that's communism then I think you are wrong but we'll just have to agree to disagree.
    In my eyes that's a free, capitalistic society and I quite fond of those
  • 1
    @iiii Or put another way: The only way of viewing the world I find acceptable is by treating people as if they have the same amount of some divine value.
    If you do that then you necessarily arrive at individualism.
    And if you treat each person as if they had intrinsic value then you cannot privilege or oppress them arbitrarily and thus you cannot enforce equality of outcome which (I definitely believe) is basis for communism
  • 1
    @12bitfloat individualism does not directly oppose communal values though.
  • 0
    @iiii Exactly. And communal values aren't exclusive to communism
  • 0
    @12bitfloat true as well
Add Comment