Because that lobster has no original thoughts. Whatever insight you think he has is not unique to him and the fact that you choose to watch his content and quote him without knowing any alternative is going to make people ask questions.
Here’s the thing, I never watch his content. And I can’t even remember why I happened to watch that clip, I saw it somewhere randomly. But it stood out to me because I’ve never heard another person really acknowledge the problem with telling people they’re fine and dismissing any problems they might be experiencing, which denies their own experience and can make them feel invalidated. It seems to be very common to do that in society and to subvert that idea seems relatively uncommon. I’m sure other people have explained why it’s problematic but I just haven’t seen any others. So my go-to for explaining that concept is more or less what Jordan Peterson said.
You've never heard anyone say to be empathetic with others and not be dismissive of their problems? Really? I guess for most people that's not something that needs to be said...
Also wrote open source software to generate those fantastic visualizations. It has been forked and is maintained, and it has therefore influenced the whole genre positively.
On the topic, Brady Haran’s channels are also putting out great educational content.
not a youtuber, but I genuinely enjoyed babylon bee and the daily bonnet for parody news about christian and mennonite culture. the humor was always inward. now its all propaganda
My only budgeting is to earn much more than I spent so I don’t have to think too much about it. That means that I live quite frugal and other than food don’t really buy much on a regular basis.
This works great until you lose half your income and you don’t change your spending habits because your cats are used to a certain standard of living. Hooray for my line of credit!
The movie is set almost entirely aboard the Titanic, barring a brief couple scenes in port, and the framing device set on a research boat in the present day.
The Titanic is realized in excellent detail. The sets, costumes, special effects are all exceptionally well done.
Most of the runtime of the film is dedicated to a teenage love story between Kate Winslet’s Rose and Leonardo DeCaprio’s Jack. Honestly I think it holds up. It drags a bit here and there (spitting lessons?!) but if Romeo and Juliet is a great love story, Titanic is fantastic.
The sinking sequence holds up amazingly well. The set pieces are of extremely high quality and bring the disaster to life in ways only James “puckered asshole” Cameron can. Life-size sets that actually flooded and tilted, miniatures, and a restrained use of CGI come together beautifully.
The choice to set this fictional love story into this historic disaster setting is perhaps somewhat dubious.
The soundtrack, especially Celine Dion’s utter caterwaul of the title theme can be a bit much, and was severely overplayed in the years following the movie’s release.
The giant blue diamond was a pointless macguffin that failed to pay off. It was given(?) to her by her fiance that she hates, she decided to have her portrait drawn in the nude wearing the diamond for some reason, retrieving the diamond from the coat the fiance had put on her was the reason why the psychotic guy was shooting at them, she only realized she had it when aboard the rescue ship, and then she throws it overboard at the end…for some reason. Audiences reacted pretty poorly to the thing, didn’t stop them from merchandising it.
Overall a pretty well-crafted movie with some questionable choices, made by a canker sore of a person.
I actually really disagree about the whole diamond thing…
In addition to it being the primary plot device to get rose to actually tell her story, it plays a pivotal role in the story aboard the ship & is a key element in one of the main themes of the movie (money doesnt buy happiness).
Regarding the 1st part (wearing it for the drawing)… the drawing was intended to be malicious… effectively a way to tell cal “we’re over”… hence the note that accompanied it saying “darling, now you can keep both locked in your safe”. It was effectively a vulgar display to cal showing that she cant be “bought” (essentially what her arranged marriage was… selling her as effectively a slave so that her mother would remain wealthy).
Regarding the shooting scene, id argue it wasnt about the diamond at all, but about what happened just moments before… jack and cal were both trying to get rose on the lifeboat. It was super macho aggressive where they were both kind-of attempting to one-up eachother to win her affection (hence cal removing jack’s blanket and giving her the coat). This is also when cal gave his “i always win, one way or another” remark. Rose jumps back onto the ship and right into jacks arms (passionately kissing in front of cal). Enraged by this, cal chases them with the gun… id argue, this is cal’s last ditch attempt of “winning” (attempting to force them apart through murder). I think the comment about the diamond was just more of an afterthought once the adrenaline wore off.
Regarding throwing it overboard, what was she supposed to do? Give it generously to bill paxton? Rose’s entire presence on the modern ship & all of her actions are purely malicious. Bill paxton getting the diamond is literally the worst case scenario.
Think of how rose got involved… Bill paxton was showing off the drawing on tv to essentially say “see, we arent grave robbing, we are simply preserving history”. Rose saw right through that though due to her knowledge of where the drawing was (in the safe). Her phone call to bill paxton saying “have you found the heart of the ocean?” Wasnt a sincere question, but more of a “i know exactly what youre doing” threat. She is there to stop them, not reward them… her excessive luggage & wasting a whole day of their time to ramble about old grandma stories prove that. (on a ship like that, schedule is everything and wasting a day to listen to old grandma stories is most certainly a worst case scenario that will cost them millions).
Sure in theory, she could sell it, but doing so would create 3 issues…
1- the sale of such a priceless artifact would garner tons of attention. Everyone with even the slightest potential stake in it would likely come after her with an armies of lawyers (think insurance companies, cal’s heirs, the UK government/royal family, bill paxton’s company, etc)… Sure, enough time has passed that different statutes would limit their effectiveness in achieving success, but she (and her family) would be put in a precarious position of spending years entangled in legal battles while simultaneously being both “rich” and “not rich” (cant exactly buy a lawyer with a diamond that may or may not be yours after the fierce legal battles)… its really being stuck between a rock and a hard place.
2- it would go deeply against her moral compass. Her entire life story was essentially being enslaved by wealth & escaping/ living an amazing life it by essentially faking her death to become poor.
3- The diamond is really the only tangible item associated with her past life, jack’s entire existence, and an event that played such a pivotal role in completely changing every aspect of her life. likely not a single day goes by where titanic isnt in her mind… Considering this, id argue the sentimental value of such an item likely holds more value to her than all the money in the world.
Personally, I always saw her throwing such an item in the ocean being similar to putting a cherished possession in the casket of a deceased loved one… frankly, i think it is the single most profound scene in the movie. Ive watched the movie literally hundreds of times & that scene is without fail when i start crying. The solitude nature of the act coupled with the look of relief on rose’s face just get to me. Its like shes been holding her breath for the last 84 years & that moment was the first time she was able to finally breathe.
People who like bad movies have been conditioned by consumerism to not appreciate art. They believe spectacle, humour, and a tight plot are ‘good enough’, and they don’t value thoughtfulness, novelty, beauty, or abrasiveness nearly enough. Film is more than a way to fill time and have fun. Film is more than an explosion, a laugh, and a happy ending.
On an unrelated note: Mad Max: Fury Road is one of my favourite movies.
It’s strange that you said that and then said you liked fury road. I thought fury road was the epitome of spectacle and production value with actual value.
I added that to sort of admit my own hypocrisy; I tried to exaggerate my opinion a bit for the sake of spurring discussion. I mostly believe what I said, but my real thoughts are much messier and less well thought out.
What would you consider a “bad movie,” because I wouldn’t consider a “tight plot” one of their shared features. Spectacle: absolutely, humor: frequently, tight plot: if only.
I wouldn’t agree that Marvel films have a competent plot, but maybe that’s because I generally struggle to follow the plot through all the other crap, and am left wondering “was that a plot hole or did I space out during all the explosions and miss a critical line of dialogue?”
I explain it like this: people assume beer is one product but most economists actually study it as two distinct products: mass production beer and craft beer. They actually behave like two separate markets. People like each for very different reasons. And consumer behavior is very different around both.
That’s how I feel about Film and Movies. We may watch them both on a screen, but other than that they are very different things. And you can like both! I love the MCU films. But I don’t go expecting intellectual expositions.
I also love Dead Poets Society, Hidden Figures, and Argo. Let people like things. Let people like different things differently. It’s OK.
Not from my office window per se, but on my way into work I saw the second plane hit the World Trade Center. That was weird and messed me up for a bit.
The weirdest one was probably back in March/April of 2020 when we were in a total covid lockdown, and an ice cream truck - completely alone on the street and the only vehicle seen for days - slowly drove by while playing Christmas music. That was some Twilight Zone shit.
I remember seeing the second plane hit while I was at work, live on the news. I kinda paused in shock, and said, “well fuck. We’re going to war.” The owner of the shop closed up for the rest of the day, and reopened at 6am the next day. We were normally 24/6.
I like the podcast Behind the Bastards which frequently discusses grifters and how they got rich / influential. There’s a few episodes on COVID grifters that may interest you.
asklemmy
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.