Beastiality is gross. Therefore, if a movie features that, I wonít go see it. For one to sit and complain about it when knowing it is featured is of course useless. I also question those, like SIN, who question stupid people. People in general are idiots. Donít we already know that around here? Whatís to discuss except to complain about idiots?
As for your second video, the stoner that loves to cuss while filming his apartment, he makes some valid points about Trump and the people who complain about him. Also makes some valid points about municipalities verses handling thIngs on an individual/private level.
the film isn't actually about having sex with animals.
Well, no shit. Guillermo del Toro's movies have always been symbolic. I watched a few but only Pan's Labyrinth impressed me. It was definitely his best film. Since I'm not really his fan, I haven't watched "The Shape of Water." I only saw a trailer at the cinema, where I went to watch some other movie. It seemed to be boring.
I occasionally see people condemning the movies they haven't even seen because the theme of the movie either hurts their sense of aesthetic or their moral principles. Usually, the motivation is a religion but not always. Sometimes, the movie makers' aim is indeed to shock and cause controversy. But most of the time, it's the ignorant people reading into the movie what is not there.
I think you add a lot of hot air to topics that could easily be discussed.
I'm comprehending the discussion fine, I just don't want to get bogged down in another one that goes nowhere.
There's a movie that uses symbolism that many people are construing to be an ode to bestiality, or some such shit, no? And their "outrage" over their perceptions are basically sign posts to virtue signaling, no?
As far as "Stoned and panning my apartment" Man goes, he's basically calling attention to the same sort off sign posts that he sees in people's "outrage" over Trump, no?
I only responded to things I wanted to. Comprehension is just fine.
Unless, of course, as is your way to gleefully (erroneously) point out, I'm totally missing THE point that is so flipping obvious to anyone with half a brain....
Could be. Personally, I don't pay attention to Oscars. It doesn't matter to me what awards, if any, the movie received. I also don't read reviews. I just check the repertoire of Warsaw cinemas, read a synopsis, watch a trailer and if I think "Oh this movie could be really cool" I go to watch it. I'm an old-fashioned person who prefers to watch her favourite films on a big screen. Usually the Oscar movies are not the ones that interest me anyway.
That's me. I don't know about other people. Many could have the same attitude. But there are some who get shocked or offended easily and could purposefully boycott a movie, like it was the case with "The Golden Compass" for example. It's grossly anti-Christian but only if you read in between the lines.
I don't know what kind of melodrama is going on between you and Ms Chloe. Personally, I don't care about your post count and I'm not sure why she cares.
However, your recent anger outbursts and multiple ad hominems have been peculiar. You also wrote that this place is worse than Facebook and that people or rather "swines" here are not able to debate you.
There are some sanctimonious idiots here for sure but the one assuming eviller than thou (or should I say special snowflake?) attitude is you.
What are you going on about? Do you ever tire of telling people they are angry?
How one should debate or misconstruing what you read? Just another topic where it requires stick figures and cue cards I suppose. Speaking of Facebook posting, what does this have to do with the topic? Oh Wait...
_________________________ SINJONES.com ________________________ God Emperor Trump's Valkyrie
Loc: Gold Coast, Australia
A lot of religious people were up in arms when the "coming soon ads" were running for the TV series "Lucifer", and how innocent did it turn out to be - certainly nothing which would bring on the rapture. I watched the first series and found it delightfully entertaining, but not engrossing enough to be bothered with the second.
I haven't read "50 Shades Of Grey" myself, but I did read part of a online interview where people got to converse with the author and the shit she had to listen to... One young woman claimed she was fired because of the book. Because she took her boss' smiles the wrong way and planted a kiss on him. Book's fault! Other people found it offensive to women.
I just figure if you don't like what you are reading, close the book. I put warnings in the front of some of my books, so if you don't like the content, then don't open it! Don't open it and then blame me if you feel offended. Same with movies... Just turn it off or walk out of the theatre.
They're works of fiction and somebody's creation. I don't think it does us any good to stifle people's creative channel. Hell, I don't like every piece of art. Doesn't mean I would dictate who is allowed to like it. Like I would never hang a piece of artwork created with sanitary napkins in my house. But if the Manchester art Gallery doesn't want to rehang Waterhouse's "Hilas And The Nymphs", I'll gladly give it a loving home.
I will admit to being annoyed by the amount of propaganda in TV and movies. Not that it is there - more that I don't like it being systematically shoved down the necks of the masses. But I guess that has always gone on... I should let that go more.
Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
You know... the thing is that the majority of those offended by or protesting against some movie, book, theater performance or work of art have never seen it. It's the moral outrage bandwagon started by a few most vocal activists with the rest of the sheep jumping on. That they don't have to watch or read something is not the point. What they worry about is that someone dares to meddle with the cultural status quo, try to change the moral standards of the society they live in to something totally alien to them.
Some time ago, where I live there were some protests against the art exhibition in one of the museums. Those Catholic activists were spending there a couple of days literally occupying the museum. Thus they were willingly exposing themselves to something they found offensive. Why? They explained to the journalists interviewing them that they live in a Catholic country and they don't want it to become atheistic. That they were afraid nobody would respect the Christian values.
Re: Beastiality. Such acts are an abuse of animals, I don't need to see such content to know that such abuse creates suffering and distress in an animal. My opposition to such acts and content is not about any morality but an empathy for a living thing.
Beastiality is illegal in the UK, as is the possession of content showing beastiality. Those caught with content showing beastiality tend to be reported in the media as also in possession of child porn. Getting caught with beastiality content will end in jail and also exposure in the media in the UK.
Re: moral standards. I am of the position that when one is a visitor to a host or a community that respect is given to the host and that community of their cultural traditions and beliefs. If I go to a Muslim nation, I will not drink alcohol or make touching-contact with females. If however, a Muslim comes to the UK, I expect them to accept that I drink alcohol and women can walk aground half naked, and if the Muslims dislike this, they should go back to their own culture.
Greece, the Bankers bitch.
Loc: East Coast USA
I realize that, not being a user of social media, I'm not hanging with the cool people. But where is there a "trend" of attributing bestiality to THE SHAPE OF WATER? Throw a bone here to an uncool old lady who watched your video, please.
As for "virtue signaling", I don't see how anything virtue-related is conveyed by people trying to force a connection between some creative work and a very loaded topic. (What I am thinking after watching both videos is more like attention whoring.) Of course some creative works play intentionally with the "offensive", but I don't think that is the case here.
I haven't seen the film (I have vision problems which prevent me from seeing films at a cinema), but am looking forward to it. From what I understand about it, it draws on a mythological concept that is very common worldwide, where gods in animal form, demi gods, or humanoid beings, have an intimate relationship with humans. And the humanoid isn't always a male, either. There are all those stories from the North Atlantic and Baltic about marine animals that can take human female form, marry a local fisherman, and at some point revert, returning to the sea.
I have to admit I thought of Tani Jantsang when I first heard about this film! Haven't read them in decades, but I am sure I remember Cthulhu Mythos short stories that play with this idea.
Oh, and the dude who says he pees in his fridge is so gross, I deem him virtue incapable.
Only Man cares for Man; the Universe doesn't give a shit. -- Marcelo Ramos Motta