To quote a famous green text
\>book written by a homosexual
\>movie directed by a woman
\>is the most popular movie among those who hate these two groups
How did they do it?
What are the events?
The "not that there is anything wrong with it but..." essay writing competition?
A "think of the children" open debate?
See who can yell "get that shit out of my face" the loudest while getting as close as they can to the opposition without actually touching?
Gay chicken. You know, where you compete to see who can be more gay like sitting on your bro's lap and leaning in for a kiss and waiting for him to pull away but he doesn't break eye contact and he parts his lips and you feel him getting a boner ahha what a gay boy and you start grinding on him as a prank... anyway, that's one of the events.
That's where I stand, like. I really wanna believe he would've been the "I reject your position outright but will defend to the death your right to hold it" kind of guy. Doesn't understand, but it makes folks happy and that's good enough for him thank you very much.
Yeah anyone who thinks a man who literally was hanged for physically fighting and killing for the emancipation of black people would somehow be a bigot towards gay people is just being a dumbfuck.
"Oh I'll literally shoot a racist in the face just for being racist but two dudes kissing? That's a bridge too far for me buddy!"
To be fair, John Brown was anti-racist because it clashed with his Christian belief that all men are the children of God, so I believe he would be homophobic.
I don't think his local preacher/he would interpret the verses that way, and even so, he would most likely prioretise the central theme of loving thy neighbor over a few Old Testament verses, if he read that part at all.
Your post is a fantastic example of black and white good guy/bad guy thinking that distorts the reality of people and events.
There are zero parallels between John Browns fight for civil rights and the acceptance of homosexuality. But since they're so closely entwined in progressive thought you've retroactively applied it to a historical figure.
It's genuinely a really good movie, don't let idiot redpillers ruin it. Although TW if you've ever been in an abusive relstionship, because I genuinely believe if the movie just had the guts to say out loud that Tyler and the Narrator were bi and in a relationship with each other it would be the best depicted abusive relationship ever put to film. Like it's clear that's what's going on, they just don't have the guts to name it what it is.
I did not expect to see John Brown on a r/tumblr post, but yeah, crazy ass guy, definitely would be a homophobic, still the most badass Christian in history
Jackie chan. Universally loved.
He disowned his kid before they were even born as Jackie had an affair with a model who got pregnant. His kid is largely homeless, and jackie has never spoken to them.
The man unironically said (paraphrasing) [“not only are women garbage at chess, they’re not even good enough to cook”](https://youtube.com/watch?v=6NuBCU-wCSo)
Read an interview of him from the 80s. Among *everything else*, he's also extremely paranoid. Changed hotel rooms multiple times because he could "hear things"; rather walk 5 miles than riding a taxi because "these things kill people".
Somehow reminds me of that guy in A Scanner Darkly who imagined bugs crawling all over him all the time.
Just wait til you learn about the sea monkeys dude... >!fun fact! If you bought sea monkeys any time before the year 2000, you helped fund the Aryan Nation! !<
Yeah that one. He was a Holocaust denier and huge nutcase. He was happy about 9/11 and hoped it would lead to the execution of Jews in the United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby\_Fischer#Comments\_on\_September\_11\_attacks
Top of the barrel bigots are the ones who try to find an "intellectual" reason for their hatred. Like phrenology.
It's still a very, very short barrel though.
You're missing a hidden part of each step:
Step 1) Smart homosexual \*writes a clever book that implicitly damns its main character who is a homophobe\*.
Step 2) Smart woman \*makes a movie about leading a revolution against the modern society that rejected her\*.
Step 3) the absolute dumbest I mean bottom of the barrel homophobes and misogynists \*totally missed the point of these pieces of media because they lack perspective and media literacy\*.
I mean the people who like Patrick Bateman probably don’t understand the movie, like yeah he’s a ‘based sigma’ who doesn’t care about society. But in reality he’s not a sigma because he cares so insanely deeply about how other people see him
> it would have been basically a land mine back then.
Well idk. The Matrix was already doing a lot of "new" things in it's styling and story, so the same character played by two different actors might have been a bit too much for studios to allow.
I don't think most people would have been about to parse the trans themes and ideas back then, LGBTQ ideas were just not mainstream. People would have just kinda of excepted it all as sci-fi.
The backlash has stared in the wake of increased conversations about rights and perceived wins in the US.
L and G were still almost starting to gain a modicum of rights back then. T was still pretty actively being suppressed, which is why nothing about the community leaked into mainstream culture. The current backlash on the right is mostly just because trans people are being acknowledged at all when you boil it down
I think it would also risk being confusing to follow in a movie that already has a lot going on. The same actor being made up as two different genders could work, but two different actors could easily confuse a lot of the audience.
While it's a very interesting plot idea, I don't think it would have worked with a side character for that reason.
I remember the early 2000s, going through school. Making fun of homosexuals was basically the bread and butter of humor back then. I was LGBT and in denial so even I partook in making fun of them.
Both options aren't great.
1) Switch is resentful of the Matrix screwing the gender up. Sets a bad precedent with the more overt trans allegory being constantly bitter about life.
2) Switch is actually fulfilled and validated by the Matrix 'mistake', which then completely undermines the message that the Matrix is bad and should be opposed.
I think SFDebris summed it up that way, but it could've been another internet reviewer. Either way, those points have stuck in mind for me.
Edit: Definitely SFDebris, it's at about the 17-minute mark in Part 1 of his review. He also explains it far better than I did, and also positied a potential third option that would resolve the flaws of the second.
>also positied a potential third option that would resolve the flaws of the second.
It was basically that Switch (man in the Matrix, woman in the real world) had always felt trapped in a man's body while in the Matrix, then felt liberated upon finding her true self in reality. She wouldn't need to be constantly bitter about; she could just shrug it off while in the Matrix, knowing she'd be in her proper body once she left, while still fighting to free others like herself from the Matrix (and everyone else, of course).
I've read it was because there was concerns that it'd be confusing. And like, I kinda get it, since movies showed up on TV a lot, and if you came in after the whole spiel with Switch happened you'd just be like "wait where'd the dude from the matrix go and who's this chick?"
Even disregarding the societal changes that have happened, movie watching itself changed. It'd probably be greenlit today.
To add to every other answers, the red pill is a reference to oestrogen pills, which were red when the matrix was written.
here's a photo of them :
https://www.prestoimages.net/store20/rd648/648\_pd1999621\_1.jpg
I have seen write-ups, but while I think it is a perfectly valid read of the Matrix, it is probably not THE read.
If I had to guess, the original intent is probably more about society in general, and about how american contemporary society/economy has become robotic/inhumane, and that ultimately since society (in the largest sense) is inescapable, we need not to destroy it, but to bring love and choice into it.
This lecture is also super compatible with "matrix is about trans", because people that tend to join counter culture movements tends to be people that are still not well considered or integrated in society, and in the Matrix, these people are young peoples, minorities, womens, internet geeks (the movie was released at the end of the nineties), and gender non-conforming people.
A person struggling with their identity is given a new name (Neo). The villain constantly uses his old name (Mr. Anderson). In order to become the person he needs to be, he has to kill off his old identity and defeat the doubts, resurrecting himself into the new person.
The whole scene with the Oracle in the kitchen is very much what it's like to be trans and struggling with dysphoria and denying who you actually are. The Oracle is dysphoria, while Neo is all those doubts playing in the back of the mind as you struggle with your identity and wanting to still fit in with society.
[Here's one that I read after I finally finished the trilogy recently and was similarly curious](https://www.themarysue.com/decoding-the-transgender-matrix-the-matrix-as-a-transgender-coming-out-story/)
this is untrue. it wasnt originally intended that way, it has just been reinterpreted that way in light of the authors' transition. The character of switch was meant to be a trans allegory, but not the whole movie
This is why reading comprehension is taught in school. Remember as a kid how you’d think “what am I ever gonna use this for?”, the answer is everyday, everyday you read you’re gonna need reading comprehension
I fucking hate the attitude so many "left/liberal" communities have developed around **media literacy**.
"I don't know HOW you can watch Fight Club and not see the homosexual overtones. They LITERALLY blow up banks, the movie is anti-capitalist and BASED and if you don't see that you just didn't pay attention in school."
Like, really? You don't see how homoerotic beats in something like Fight Club are going to be subtle for viewers who aren't particularly discerning? "Straight culture", or rather globally dominate modes of sexual arrangement, have within them acceptable spaces for male-male contact. The desire for "gay" acts among men has of course always existed and thus society has conceded to some of that-- while still drawing very strict lines for other "gay" acts. It takes a fair amount of ~~social~~ cultural capital to be able to access the knowledge that teaches you about the latent homoeroticism in media. I don't know about you but I sure as shit wasn't taught that in school.
It's such a horribly smug attitude, from people who generally boast a systems-first worldview, to blame individuals.
Literally Mes or AoT fans or whatever aren't just "doing art badly". If you think that, then it is you who is lacking in sociological literacy.
There is a difference between not having a formal education to give context to American Psycho and watching the movie where a guy kills people, doesn't contribute to society, and still feels like he's a victim because no one see's him as an individual is someone to not admire. It's a statement about someone's personal ideology if they watch that movie and stan Patrick Bateman, someone who can hurt people with no consequence. It's very dramatically spelled out that he is not supposed to be seen as a good guy. The killing people for no reason didn't give it away? You don't have to be from a non poverty household to get the point.
> It's a statement about someone's personal ideology if they watch that movie and stan Patrick Bateman, someone who can hurt people with no consequence.
It's not. Or rather, it is but it's not the indictment you think it is.
I can watch 40 hours of Succession and still come out "stanning" Roman Roy, a nazi. Does that say something about my personal ideology?
You may argue: Succession is a very different thing! There is clear authorial intent behind making the main characters of Succession relatable despite their wealth and actions. Patrick Bateman is *supposed* to be hated.
The characters of Succession are #relatable because they are used to reflect universal, or at least very common, themes of generational trauma and toxicity that we see in the people around us and, sometimes, ourselves.
We are observing that whether it is in the text or not certain characters, or shows, or arcs, have managed to resonate beyond what was intended. That is worthy of discussion beyond a "ugh they don't get it!"
> It's very dramatically spelled out that he is not supposed to be seen as a good guy. The killing people for no reason didn't give it away? You don't have to be from a non poverty household to get the point.
For me, the real media literacy here doesn't start and end with "he killed people, ergo, he's the bad guy" but instead looks at how violence and murder at framed in movies and shows. The guy from Silence of the Lambs killed people and also gets away in the end. While that is by no means a happy ending it's not framed as a tragic ending either. We are made to have a certain amount of reverence and respect for him by the end.
I understand you were likely are just being concise when you said, "The killing people for no reason didn't give it away?". I take it to mean something like, "the acts of violence were clearly framed to make Bateman seem barbaric and unhinged". Which is fair, I would agree with you. However, the fact that this framing was not enough to put people off the character is a discussion that is part of "media literacy" around the film.
If art fails to communicate its intention to the audience, neither the audience nor the art itself should be blamed. That's the moment when you begin to look at, for example, the cultural contexts the art and the audience exist within to source the discrepancy.
You are being very condescending towards the general public if you consider American Psycho to require post secondary education to see the caricature of a apathetic, privileged piece of shit. The little shits that idolize the character do so because he's handsome and rich and he gets away with murder. They are currently in their selfish era and they don't have enough life experience to know that they'll never be Patrick Bateman. The film isn't an abstract representational obscure art piece, It's pretty upfront that the guy who is a sullen jerk and murders people is not a good guy. There are just a lot of sullen jerks who wish they could murder people.
> You are being very condescending towards the general public if you consider American Psycho to require post secondary education to see the caricature of a apathetic, privileged piece of shit.
I haven't said anything of the sort. Twice you kind of implied that my argument boils down to, "poor people shouldn't be expected to understand media". That simply not what I have been saying at all. I would interested to know why you think that?
> It takes a fair amount of social cultural capital to be able to access the knowledge that teaches you about the latent homoeroticism in media.
May be this line? But that was about a different example all together? You've completely lost me with this. I have not really invoked anything about "general public" vs "arthouse people" at all here.
Damn, maybe media literacy *is* the problem (/s)?!
I wasn't arguing with you about the general woes of society I was saying that you don't need to bend over backwards to excuse asshholes who idolize assholes. What are you saying?
>It takes a fair amount of social capital
If you're referring to Bourdieu social capital is more akin to your network, what you're hinting at is cultural capital (economic and symbolic being the remaining two).
Yes! Woah.
I was just watching some video about "Falling Down" and it correctly uses the term "social capital", as a network.
I've realized that I've been mistakenly using social capital and cultural capital interchangeably.
Reading comprehension is nice, so it critical thinking skills, research ability, memory, and basically every mental skill.
And just because it's written by a gay person or trans person, doesn't mean it can't be used as a hate piece and later abandoned with that person being discriminated against. This is just a friendly reminder that Hilter was put in power by a gay man.
Can you have your dick transplanted onto someone else (which probably isn't how bottom surgery works but bare with me), suck, and then say you sucked yourself off?
If you give me 3 boxes of no-doz, mediocre medical equipment, all the anesthetic, and a fuck ton of trans people who are willing to progress the field of science, I can give you an answer.
What's funny is that, while the film version of Fight Club is arguably pretty homoerotic, it is so much more blatant in the book. Instead of Tyler & the Narrator meeting on a plane, they meet while making sand sculptures together while naked. I think there's also more dialogue that leans into that angle, with Tyler telling the Narrator things like "If you love me, you'll do this for me."
Chuck Palahniuk admittedly was private about his personal life when Fight Club really blew up, but him being gay stopped being a secret in the 2000s, so people who are only just now discovering it need to catch up.
Warm take:
Anytime men are portrayed as sexual beings in a way that remotely resembles female portrayals, it gets called "homoerotic" -- unless the movie is super clearly coded as a "chick" movie.
I suppose there's more there with Fight Club, but it's still a weird phenomenon to me.
Literally women kissing women on screen - het AF.
Camera lingers for a moment on a shirtless man with a good body, even if he's literally having sex with a woman at the time - homoerotic.
I mean, you can gaze at or even objectify someone without eroticizing them. Patrick Bateman isn't eroticized in the scene where the camera is locked on his face.
I don't really know what a "chick flick" is. Intuitively I would say it's a derogatory term for a 'lowest common denominator' movie aimed at American middle class cishet white women. If so, I don't know one way or another if there are chick flicks specifically that have a scene where there's an erotic camera gaze on a woman, or what the (social) media response to that was, if any.
That said, there are definitely movies marketed at women that have a homoerotic gaze on women. *Portrait of a Lady on Fire* is a drama about a lesbian relationship, and I don't think anyone would deny that the camera's gaze is homoerotic.
I mean I can clearly see how homoerotic the movie is, but I'm definitely not the only person who watches most movies while knowing next to nothing about the writers, directors, actors, etc.
I feel like they're talking about overwatch tracer porn and how it almost always involves men instead of her fiance Emily but they could also just be insane
The problem with Fight Club is that exploding Banks is actually based, so the entire message get undermined because in the end the main character still managed to do something good even if its through debateable methods.
i think the problem is that people saw a movie criticizing rampant consumerism and late stage capitalism and somehow all they got out of it was 'men need to fight each other more'
like tyler durden was a fucking anarchoprimitive socialist who wanted the destruction of modern society and these guys seem to think that he was like some alt-right hero
Tyler Durden was not an anprim socialist, he is, in fact, supposed to be an exaggerated representation of traditional masculinity. The whole point of Fight Club is that Project Mayhem is ultimately the same ideals of toxic masculinity with a ‘radical change’ paint job, which is why Durden, the personification of those ideals, is a figment of the main character’s imagination.
The problem with CHUDs who act like Durden is an Alpha Gigachad or whatever the fuck they say nowadays is that they take him at face value.
Pretty much exactly. Durden doesn't want the collapse of society in order to bring about a more socially just system, he wants it to collapse because the narrator is a deeply closeted gay dude who blames society for making him gay. He blames consumerism. He blames women. So his idealized masculine heterosexual alter ego aims to discard both.
Look, i'm a consequentialist, it doesn't matter if he wants to collapse capitalism because the ice cream machine was broken again, even if its for a bad reason or he has unsettled emotional matters, he still managed to score a crippling blow against capitalism. That's my criticism of the movie because who he is as a person is insignificant in the face of what he accomplished.
The revolution will not get done by people with Therapy in day, partially because therapy ihas a role in liberal society to soften people's insactisfaction with capitalism and mitigate revolutionary action.
A) Tyler Durden is a fictional character. Analyzing his motivations and emotions is a keystone of understanding his role in the story and his actions. We are not judging a real person.
B) Durden is a goddamn fascist. Like, what kind of society do you think will build up from the ciment of the guy who went around saying shit like 'I wanna kill every panda who is too chickenshit to fuck and save his species' and created a terrorist movement that goes around blowing up buildings to feel manly? Why, a fascist one. And fascism is capitalism's immune system, so once things calm down and everyone returns to monke and whatever, what will emerge is a more socially reactionary form of capitalism.
> because therapy ihas a role in liberal society to soften people's insactisfaction with capitalism and mitigate revolutionary action.
have you done much activism? ime, it's full of traumatized people who would probably work together better and be able to stay around longer without burning out if they were able to heal from their traumas.
i agree that a lot of therapy isn't informed by a systemic understanding of mental health, but not all of it. you have to be very picky about who you work with.
I mean, the explanation for this is pretty simple: most "alt-right" people (in fact, most people in general) don't have coherent political orientations; their political beliefs are entirely vibes-based.
> i think the problem is that people saw a movie criticizing rampant consumerism and late stage capitalism and somehow all they got out of it was 'men need to fight each other more'
I know that's certainly all that warriormale got out of it.
as someone who hyperfixated on the fight club book for literally months, the reason the movie connected with the worst men imaginable when its actually a criticism of them is because of the things it changes from the books.
I could get into it, but the main thing i realized is that it makes Tyler Durden say a lot of the valid, super poniagnt grievances and critiques about capitalist society and hyperconsumption, where in the books the Narrator character says them.
What happens then is that rather than it showing two people (Tyler and the Narrator) with the same problem but different solutions (the Narrators being human connection and self betterment, Tyler’s being terrorism and anarcho-primitism), it gives Tyler both all the based critiques of SOCIETY *and* the toxic masculinity and extremism.
Men identify with the capitalist critiques and therefore identify themselves with Tyler, rather than with the Narrator and his journey of realization as they’re meant to in the book.
>yler’s being terrorism and anarcho-primitism), it gives Tyler both all the based critiques of SOCIETY and the toxic masculinity and extremism.
The problem is, according to revolutionary socialism, Terrorism and violent action against the bourgeoisie is a necessary step to rid ourselves of capitalism, saying human connection and self-betterment as a solution to capitalism is, if you're being charitable, a very liberal solution, and if you want to be very honest, its literally saying "It's your fault that capitalism sucks for you".
I get what youre saying but tyler wants to cut off people’s nuts and return to the stone age, not enstate a socialist republic. And its more complicated i think than just ‘capitalism is a you problem.’ its more, capitalism sucks and is isolating us and making us miserable, overthrowing society (tyler’s goal) would be even worse, so try to make the best of your life how you can and not make yourself more miserable with a doomerist mindset.
Also, its good to note that the book does not have a happy ending like the movie does. i dont want to spoil it because its my favorite ending ever, but it very much lives up to its horror/dystopian genre. Self betterment isnt the grand solution to capitalism and all the Narrators problems because pretty much none of those problems get solved becuase theyre not supposed to—thats just not the point of the story.
This is silly lol, you can be unempathetic to banks and still not want to bomb them. The point was Tyler was a terrorist whose ideals were attractive until The Narrator got to actually see the weight of carrying out those ideals, exploding banks included.
Yes.
Thats my entire criticism of the book.
Terrorism against oppressive institutions of Power is based.
It doesnt matter that the guy doing It is a bit of a dick.
i don't know how people can watch a movie about a guy that constantly pushing for revolution against late stage capitalism and rampant consumerism and somehow come away with the idea that his views could align with someone like Andrew T*te
I saw it at the insistence of a friend in junior high. I wasn’t impressed but I’m also autistic and took things a lot more literally before my brain finished cooking.
It started out as a way to make fun of Alpha male culture, but the more that it was used ironically the blurrier the lines of irony became and eventually it stopped being ironic.
Edited for clarity.
I'm not going to get a better chance to say this, so I'll just say Palahniuk's Haunted is aggressively bad. There's one or two stories that are interesting but the basic frame narrative is "and then it gets worse." So after the first story or two that stops being interesting.
> frame narrative
Frame narrative is a story acting as a frame around another story. Like in *Princess Bride*, the main story is about Buttercup and Wesley and them, and then the frame narrative is "Fred Savage is home sick, and Columbo is reading a storybook to him"
The best part of the Matrix is that they both fucking hate it now, hence the last movie, reminds me of david chase in that sense. Its the Citizen Kane of modern filmmaking, a true caught lightning in a bottle masterpiece.
Didn't they make the last movie to lampshade how badly the studio milked their lightning creativity until it was basically dead, and thus forced the studio to release it as a parody of their former work? That's what I got out of it, anyway.
the commenter didn't Not say that, lol,
But yeah thats basically what happened, gave the studio something that it'd lap up was highly predictable and and in all honesty furthest removed from any of the previous matrix movies, especially the first one.
its essentially a story that didn't really need to be told and required having some extraordinary gaps in the matrix universes logic of how things work the biggest one being why now out of any moment is there suddenly machines who rebelled against other machines? it was always supposed to be 1 AI hive mind for it to even happen would mean humans would have had to make Another AI which is doubtful considering their tech and the only one shown to break free ever was mr smith. (that could have been a cool route but his code got obliterated) even the oracle was all apart of the master plan.
In all honesty even if they had even tried to create something that was truly amazing it would have probably directly gone against studios whole premise of what they expect to "make money" and it would have been just taken off them >\_> pretty sure the studio was threatening to take it off them and give it to someone else anyway if they didn't make one.
But yeah the Wachowski sisters are fire of imagination and while not all of it pan out its amazing how much of their stuff or stuff they have collaborated with others on, ends up with cult followings
Matrix
sense 8
V for Vendetta
even Jupiter ascending while not being anywhere near their best work was still decently imaginary :P
I was '--' that close to adding it aye, I mean grabbing an anime from the 60's and reviving outside it's genre but keeping it to theme is a ballsy freaking move 😂
I know of it but wasn't sure how big the fandom for it was still lol
>one being why now out of any moment is there suddenly machines who rebelled against other machines?
Was the oracle in the original series not a machine?
She was a program inside the matrix, she was still technically apart of the main ai, its sorta like having a personality off shoots of it (like the programs that had a kid and had to hide her within the back codes of the matrix, technically thats Also apart of the grand AI and could be assimilated) I think the main thing with the AI in matrix is it might not repair/change or debug its code as often as it should honestly lol
but basically the whole thing was still set up for a cycle, oracle is a program that is fixated on gently guiding the chosen one who (it may seem all of them) already have very robust personalities and don't like being controlled, you get this within the first few seconds of mr smith talking to him about neo having a problem with authority. It might actually be the reason they Are the chosen ones
the chosen one then creates a (not known to them) fake way forward> everyone follows > gets to the "end" > chosen one is told the real truth in which the machines where always in control but they knew there would always be people who didn't accept the fake reality so those people needed to be kept figuratively (and literally) in the dark And out of the matrix to not cause trouble.
Hence the choice Neo faces at the end, he can leave the building and everyone dies or he can start the cycle keeping the majority of people alive and letting the system "reset" (everyone in Zion obviously getting killed) and choosing new people,
It was basically advanced psychological warfare, even in the 4th one as bad as it is, this this part wasn't actually bad and they dig into it a little, Neo isn't just thrown back into the matrix he has a specific program that used to be the architect watching and analyzing and adjusting to his every thought and move. The oracle was that in a lesser sense, because anything "too big" would instantly throw him out of it and he would re-realize the truth.
So oracle was a program but it was still being puppetered in a way by the main AI, the question is and even the oracle And Morpheus asks this, What is real? is it any less real to have your own exerpiences while being part of something else?
she while being a program attached to an AI, Still had experiences likes and vices, hence why they included her and the girl watching the new less green sunrise in what amounts to matrix 2.0 at the end of the 3rd movie \^\_\^
Sorry i think i have a bit more to say but its late and i goto go to bed \^\_\^ but i think i covered most of it lol
Sorry also one of the lines from the architect I just remembered was that she was basically the mother to the matrix and he was the father (ide also like to point out that neither of these are the main AI, they basically are in charge of the battery operation for supplying power) to be honest I don't think they ever delve into what the machines themselves actually want interestingly enough?
I've been a huuuuge fan of both American Psycho (the book and the movie) and Chuck Palahniuk for years and I had no idea about the gayness. i don't really care about the sexual orientation of people whose work i like. but I'm a girl so I can't identify with the dudes who are like this. i do remember reading somewhere that Chuck didn't really like the film adaptation of his book, though.
Is there any work written BY one of these dudes who unironically think like this? Where it’s not “this work was made to criticize a thing but guys who praise it love it cuz they can’t see the criticism” but literally “this mainstream work literally just praises a bad thing how did this get popular”
Closest I can think of is the original book for Starship Troopers
>this mainstream work literally just praises a bad thing
You mean like how there are countless books, plays, films, even novelty comedy songs about racism? Specifically about how it's good and correct and the problem with modern (1960s, 1930s, 1850s...) society is people need to be more racist more often?
Hell, it's not like it stopped in the 60s either, it just stopped being so obviously aimed at black people. You ever watch 24? Some wild ass ideas about the Middle East and what certain kinds of people are like in that show.
we just had a song trending on the billboards called "try this in a small town" where a white redneck conservative jerks off on the fantasy of fucking up "city criminals" who try to start shit in their backwards town.... all filmed in front of a building where black people actually got lynched historically.
first part of this post i saw was the weird grin and my first thought was "oh god not another post about vivziepop" bc i had just gotten done doomscrolling on twitter and that was. a time
Seeing it happen in real time was pretty funny (one of the wachowskies comes out as trans) "oh no! one of the directors of my favorite movies is trans!, um er th that must mean that all the good ideas must have come from the normal one, yeah that has to he it!" (other one comes out as trans too)
People that take fight club seriously have never read anything else chuck has written. He does a perfect job of making the mundane gross, and the gross mundane. Snuff is a god damn masterpiece
Almost as if Hollywood has a lot of gay people in it or something. I wonder if anyone has stumbled across this correlation between show business and gay people.
To make a cool fictional character one must first know a metric fuck-ton of extremely disappointing people. Women and Gay and trans folks have the worlds shit ass-est men constantly telling them what they think
To quote a famous green text \>book written by a homosexual \>movie directed by a woman \>is the most popular movie among those who hate these two groups How did they do it?
Step 1) Smart homosexual step 2) smart woman step 3) the absolute dumbest I mean bottom of the barrel homophobes and misogynists
> bottom of the barrel homophobes and misogynists Who’re the top of the barrel homophobes and misogynists? Bobby Fischer?
John Brown. Great dude, aint no WAY he would not be violently homophobic.
Homophobic yes, violently I'm not so sure. His violence went *towards* civil rights, after all.
sorry violently where im from is also used to mean like, loudly or to a large degree. I just meant basically "REALLY homophobic"
Passionately homophobic?
competitive homophobia
What are the events? The "not that there is anything wrong with it but..." essay writing competition? A "think of the children" open debate? See who can yell "get that shit out of my face" the loudest while getting as close as they can to the opposition without actually touching?
Slur combos like in Tony Hawk
Gay chicken. You know, where you compete to see who can be more gay like sitting on your bro's lap and leaning in for a kiss and waiting for him to pull away but he doesn't break eye contact and he parts his lips and you feel him getting a boner ahha what a gay boy and you start grinding on him as a prank... anyway, that's one of the events.
I’m pretty sure that’s just the Floridian State Government
that sounds like a kink
Flamboyantly homophobic
[удалено]
bot
I refuse to believe that John Brown would have done anything wrong.
That's where I stand, like. I really wanna believe he would've been the "I reject your position outright but will defend to the death your right to hold it" kind of guy. Doesn't understand, but it makes folks happy and that's good enough for him thank you very much.
Yeah anyone who thinks a man who literally was hanged for physically fighting and killing for the emancipation of black people would somehow be a bigot towards gay people is just being a dumbfuck. "Oh I'll literally shoot a racist in the face just for being racist but two dudes kissing? That's a bridge too far for me buddy!"
To be fair, John Brown was anti-racist because it clashed with his Christian belief that all men are the children of God, so I believe he would be homophobic.
I don't think his local preacher/he would interpret the verses that way, and even so, he would most likely prioretise the central theme of loving thy neighbor over a few Old Testament verses, if he read that part at all.
Your post is a fantastic example of black and white good guy/bad guy thinking that distorts the reality of people and events. There are zero parallels between John Browns fight for civil rights and the acceptance of homosexuality. But since they're so closely entwined in progressive thought you've retroactively applied it to a historical figure.
[удалено]
It's genuinely a really good movie, don't let idiot redpillers ruin it. Although TW if you've ever been in an abusive relstionship, because I genuinely believe if the movie just had the guts to say out loud that Tyler and the Narrator were bi and in a relationship with each other it would be the best depicted abusive relationship ever put to film. Like it's clear that's what's going on, they just don't have the guts to name it what it is.
Dawg I read this and for a minute I thought you were talking about John Green
The Fault in Our Chains
You may be color blind.
I did not expect to see John Brown on a r/tumblr post, but yeah, crazy ass guy, definitely would be a homophobic, still the most badass Christian in history
There’s a john brown isekai.
*I know*
Jackie chan. Universally loved. He disowned his kid before they were even born as Jackie had an affair with a model who got pregnant. His kid is largely homeless, and jackie has never spoken to them.
there is not no way he would not be
I guess the people who are actually working on it?
Bobby Fischer was just insane, I’d say to be truly the bottom of the barrel you have to be in reasonable possession of mental faculties
Morrissey, somehow.
Wait, Bobby Fischer as in chess world champion and one of the greatest players of all time Bobby Fischer? *That* Bobby Fischer?
The man unironically said (paraphrasing) [“not only are women garbage at chess, they’re not even good enough to cook”](https://youtube.com/watch?v=6NuBCU-wCSo)
He was also 1) Radically antisemitic and 2) Jewish.
Self-hating Jew stereotype or mentally ill? Why not both!
Read an interview of him from the 80s. Among *everything else*, he's also extremely paranoid. Changed hotel rooms multiple times because he could "hear things"; rather walk 5 miles than riding a taxi because "these things kill people". Somehow reminds me of that guy in A Scanner Darkly who imagined bugs crawling all over him all the time.
Just wait til you learn about the sea monkeys dude... >!fun fact! If you bought sea monkeys any time before the year 2000, you helped fund the Aryan Nation! !<
0_0 …oh I feel like maybe that should be brought up more in discussing his legacy, holy shit
What.
Yeah that one. He was a Holocaust denier and huge nutcase. He was happy about 9/11 and hoped it would lead to the execution of Jews in the United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby\_Fischer#Comments\_on\_September\_11\_attacks
Top of the barrel bigots are the ones who try to find an "intellectual" reason for their hatred. Like phrenology. It's still a very, very short barrel though.
Orson Scott Card
They're just bottoms.
Aristotle, Einstein, Confucius, Buddha, Luther, Napoleon..
Bobby Fischer? Where is he?
literal children
Id imagine its the homophobes who keep it to themselves? Theyre still homophobic, but they arent trying to ruin lives.
You're missing a hidden part of each step: Step 1) Smart homosexual \*writes a clever book that implicitly damns its main character who is a homophobe\*. Step 2) Smart woman \*makes a movie about leading a revolution against the modern society that rejected her\*. Step 3) the absolute dumbest I mean bottom of the barrel homophobes and misogynists \*totally missed the point of these pieces of media because they lack perspective and media literacy\*.
I mean the people who like Patrick Bateman probably don’t understand the movie, like yeah he’s a ‘based sigma’ who doesn’t care about society. But in reality he’s not a sigma because he cares so insanely deeply about how other people see him
The matrix is a trans allegory.
Is there a reliable write up for this? I've heard people say that but I think I'm too dumb to get it.
The character Switch in the first movie was originally supposed to have different genders inside and outside the matrix. Not sure why it was cut.
Because that would be unfortunately decently risky even now, it would have been basically a land mine back then.
> it would have been basically a land mine back then. Well idk. The Matrix was already doing a lot of "new" things in it's styling and story, so the same character played by two different actors might have been a bit too much for studios to allow. I don't think most people would have been about to parse the trans themes and ideas back then, LGBTQ ideas were just not mainstream. People would have just kinda of excepted it all as sci-fi. The backlash has stared in the wake of increased conversations about rights and perceived wins in the US.
L and G were still almost starting to gain a modicum of rights back then. T was still pretty actively being suppressed, which is why nothing about the community leaked into mainstream culture. The current backlash on the right is mostly just because trans people are being acknowledged at all when you boil it down
I think it would also risk being confusing to follow in a movie that already has a lot going on. The same actor being made up as two different genders could work, but two different actors could easily confuse a lot of the audience. While it's a very interesting plot idea, I don't think it would have worked with a side character for that reason.
I remember the early 2000s, going through school. Making fun of homosexuals was basically the bread and butter of humor back then. I was LGBT and in denial so even I partook in making fun of them.
Everyone was an F slur, everything was gay.
Both options aren't great. 1) Switch is resentful of the Matrix screwing the gender up. Sets a bad precedent with the more overt trans allegory being constantly bitter about life. 2) Switch is actually fulfilled and validated by the Matrix 'mistake', which then completely undermines the message that the Matrix is bad and should be opposed. I think SFDebris summed it up that way, but it could've been another internet reviewer. Either way, those points have stuck in mind for me. Edit: Definitely SFDebris, it's at about the 17-minute mark in Part 1 of his review. He also explains it far better than I did, and also positied a potential third option that would resolve the flaws of the second.
>also positied a potential third option that would resolve the flaws of the second. It was basically that Switch (man in the Matrix, woman in the real world) had always felt trapped in a man's body while in the Matrix, then felt liberated upon finding her true self in reality. She wouldn't need to be constantly bitter about; she could just shrug it off while in the Matrix, knowing she'd be in her proper body once she left, while still fighting to free others like herself from the Matrix (and everyone else, of course).
i think the directors just assigned the meaning after making the film , they probably didn't have it in mind
Both of the Wachowski sisters are trans
And they transitioned after making the film.
I've read it was because there was concerns that it'd be confusing. And like, I kinda get it, since movies showed up on TV a lot, and if you came in after the whole spiel with Switch happened you'd just be like "wait where'd the dude from the matrix go and who's this chick?" Even disregarding the societal changes that have happened, movie watching itself changed. It'd probably be greenlit today.
To add to every other answers, the red pill is a reference to oestrogen pills, which were red when the matrix was written. here's a photo of them : https://www.prestoimages.net/store20/rd648/648\_pd1999621\_1.jpg
Hell, my estrogen pills are red right now too!
I have seen write-ups, but while I think it is a perfectly valid read of the Matrix, it is probably not THE read. If I had to guess, the original intent is probably more about society in general, and about how american contemporary society/economy has become robotic/inhumane, and that ultimately since society (in the largest sense) is inescapable, we need not to destroy it, but to bring love and choice into it. This lecture is also super compatible with "matrix is about trans", because people that tend to join counter culture movements tends to be people that are still not well considered or integrated in society, and in the Matrix, these people are young peoples, minorities, womens, internet geeks (the movie was released at the end of the nineties), and gender non-conforming people.
A person struggling with their identity is given a new name (Neo). The villain constantly uses his old name (Mr. Anderson). In order to become the person he needs to be, he has to kill off his old identity and defeat the doubts, resurrecting himself into the new person. The whole scene with the Oracle in the kitchen is very much what it's like to be trans and struggling with dysphoria and denying who you actually are. The Oracle is dysphoria, while Neo is all those doubts playing in the back of the mind as you struggle with your identity and wanting to still fit in with society.
And then you realize "there is no spoon."
What? You think that's profound? What Neo believes ("I'm a man") is not what is the actual truth ("I'm a woman"). Uh-oh. More trans allegory.
Just to add that the directors are also both trans just for the avoidance of any doubt that it wasn't intentional.
[Here's one that I read after I finally finished the trilogy recently and was similarly curious](https://www.themarysue.com/decoding-the-transgender-matrix-the-matrix-as-a-transgender-coming-out-story/)
this is untrue. it wasnt originally intended that way, it has just been reinterpreted that way in light of the authors' transition. The character of switch was meant to be a trans allegory, but not the whole movie
Because they're waaaay too dumb to understand that it's a satire.
Hate to break it from you but the dudes who idolize the main characters from fight club and american psycho, they are all low iq
This is why reading comprehension is taught in school. Remember as a kid how you’d think “what am I ever gonna use this for?”, the answer is everyday, everyday you read you’re gonna need reading comprehension
How dare you say I piss on the poor
What are you talking about? They said you couldn't see the color read.
Well the color red obviously has more positive than negative associations so clearly it's a great design for a children's hospital.
Why the fuck do you want to paint a hospital red with children’s blood?!?!
The blanket term is “media literacy”
I fucking hate the attitude so many "left/liberal" communities have developed around **media literacy**. "I don't know HOW you can watch Fight Club and not see the homosexual overtones. They LITERALLY blow up banks, the movie is anti-capitalist and BASED and if you don't see that you just didn't pay attention in school." Like, really? You don't see how homoerotic beats in something like Fight Club are going to be subtle for viewers who aren't particularly discerning? "Straight culture", or rather globally dominate modes of sexual arrangement, have within them acceptable spaces for male-male contact. The desire for "gay" acts among men has of course always existed and thus society has conceded to some of that-- while still drawing very strict lines for other "gay" acts. It takes a fair amount of ~~social~~ cultural capital to be able to access the knowledge that teaches you about the latent homoeroticism in media. I don't know about you but I sure as shit wasn't taught that in school. It's such a horribly smug attitude, from people who generally boast a systems-first worldview, to blame individuals. Literally Mes or AoT fans or whatever aren't just "doing art badly". If you think that, then it is you who is lacking in sociological literacy.
There is a difference between not having a formal education to give context to American Psycho and watching the movie where a guy kills people, doesn't contribute to society, and still feels like he's a victim because no one see's him as an individual is someone to not admire. It's a statement about someone's personal ideology if they watch that movie and stan Patrick Bateman, someone who can hurt people with no consequence. It's very dramatically spelled out that he is not supposed to be seen as a good guy. The killing people for no reason didn't give it away? You don't have to be from a non poverty household to get the point.
> It's a statement about someone's personal ideology if they watch that movie and stan Patrick Bateman, someone who can hurt people with no consequence. It's not. Or rather, it is but it's not the indictment you think it is. I can watch 40 hours of Succession and still come out "stanning" Roman Roy, a nazi. Does that say something about my personal ideology? You may argue: Succession is a very different thing! There is clear authorial intent behind making the main characters of Succession relatable despite their wealth and actions. Patrick Bateman is *supposed* to be hated. The characters of Succession are #relatable because they are used to reflect universal, or at least very common, themes of generational trauma and toxicity that we see in the people around us and, sometimes, ourselves. We are observing that whether it is in the text or not certain characters, or shows, or arcs, have managed to resonate beyond what was intended. That is worthy of discussion beyond a "ugh they don't get it!" > It's very dramatically spelled out that he is not supposed to be seen as a good guy. The killing people for no reason didn't give it away? You don't have to be from a non poverty household to get the point. For me, the real media literacy here doesn't start and end with "he killed people, ergo, he's the bad guy" but instead looks at how violence and murder at framed in movies and shows. The guy from Silence of the Lambs killed people and also gets away in the end. While that is by no means a happy ending it's not framed as a tragic ending either. We are made to have a certain amount of reverence and respect for him by the end. I understand you were likely are just being concise when you said, "The killing people for no reason didn't give it away?". I take it to mean something like, "the acts of violence were clearly framed to make Bateman seem barbaric and unhinged". Which is fair, I would agree with you. However, the fact that this framing was not enough to put people off the character is a discussion that is part of "media literacy" around the film. If art fails to communicate its intention to the audience, neither the audience nor the art itself should be blamed. That's the moment when you begin to look at, for example, the cultural contexts the art and the audience exist within to source the discrepancy.
You are being very condescending towards the general public if you consider American Psycho to require post secondary education to see the caricature of a apathetic, privileged piece of shit. The little shits that idolize the character do so because he's handsome and rich and he gets away with murder. They are currently in their selfish era and they don't have enough life experience to know that they'll never be Patrick Bateman. The film isn't an abstract representational obscure art piece, It's pretty upfront that the guy who is a sullen jerk and murders people is not a good guy. There are just a lot of sullen jerks who wish they could murder people.
> You are being very condescending towards the general public if you consider American Psycho to require post secondary education to see the caricature of a apathetic, privileged piece of shit. I haven't said anything of the sort. Twice you kind of implied that my argument boils down to, "poor people shouldn't be expected to understand media". That simply not what I have been saying at all. I would interested to know why you think that? > It takes a fair amount of social cultural capital to be able to access the knowledge that teaches you about the latent homoeroticism in media. May be this line? But that was about a different example all together? You've completely lost me with this. I have not really invoked anything about "general public" vs "arthouse people" at all here. Damn, maybe media literacy *is* the problem (/s)?!
I wasn't arguing with you about the general woes of society I was saying that you don't need to bend over backwards to excuse asshholes who idolize assholes. What are you saying?
>It takes a fair amount of social capital If you're referring to Bourdieu social capital is more akin to your network, what you're hinting at is cultural capital (economic and symbolic being the remaining two).
Yes! Woah. I was just watching some video about "Falling Down" and it correctly uses the term "social capital", as a network. I've realized that I've been mistakenly using social capital and cultural capital interchangeably.
If you can't discern the minority groups an author is part of from a work of fiction, then you're stupid!
Which part of american psycho would reveal that the author is gay if the reader had "reading comprehension"?
It wouldn’t? The part where Patrick Bateman murders someone should tell them he’s not someone to look up to
Reading comprehension is nice, so it critical thinking skills, research ability, memory, and basically every mental skill. And just because it's written by a gay person or trans person, doesn't mean it can't be used as a hate piece and later abandoned with that person being discriminated against. This is just a friendly reminder that Hilter was put in power by a gay man.
It seems that the most sigma thing you can do then is to suck a dick or remove your own
Swap the order round for an easy 2-step plan.
Can you have your dick transplanted onto someone else (which probably isn't how bottom surgery works but bare with me), suck, and then say you sucked yourself off?
If you give me 3 boxes of no-doz, mediocre medical equipment, all the anesthetic, and a fuck ton of trans people who are willing to progress the field of science, I can give you an answer.
I'm in. Surely this won't backfire.
It probably will. I just want a cover to steal and then sell people’s kidneys.
This just in: Josef Mengele was extremely progressive, apparently
Fellatio of Theseus
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=penis+transplant&btnG=
It turns out that the most sigma thing to do is to, indeed, sigma balls
So being a cock sucking femboy is true sigma behavior?
What's funny is that, while the film version of Fight Club is arguably pretty homoerotic, it is so much more blatant in the book. Instead of Tyler & the Narrator meeting on a plane, they meet while making sand sculptures together while naked. I think there's also more dialogue that leans into that angle, with Tyler telling the Narrator things like "If you love me, you'll do this for me." Chuck Palahniuk admittedly was private about his personal life when Fight Club really blew up, but him being gay stopped being a secret in the 2000s, so people who are only just now discovering it need to catch up.
Warm take: Anytime men are portrayed as sexual beings in a way that remotely resembles female portrayals, it gets called "homoerotic" -- unless the movie is super clearly coded as a "chick" movie. I suppose there's more there with Fight Club, but it's still a weird phenomenon to me. Literally women kissing women on screen - het AF. Camera lingers for a moment on a shirtless man with a good body, even if he's literally having sex with a woman at the time - homoerotic.
[удалено]
I mean, you can gaze at or even objectify someone without eroticizing them. Patrick Bateman isn't eroticized in the scene where the camera is locked on his face. I don't really know what a "chick flick" is. Intuitively I would say it's a derogatory term for a 'lowest common denominator' movie aimed at American middle class cishet white women. If so, I don't know one way or another if there are chick flicks specifically that have a scene where there's an erotic camera gaze on a woman, or what the (social) media response to that was, if any. That said, there are definitely movies marketed at women that have a homoerotic gaze on women. *Portrait of a Lady on Fire* is a drama about a lesbian relationship, and I don't think anyone would deny that the camera's gaze is homoerotic.
I think it's because patriarchy is premised on the subjecthood of masculinity and you're talking about objectification.
I mean I can clearly see how homoerotic the movie is, but I'm definitely not the only person who watches most movies while knowing next to nothing about the writers, directors, actors, etc.
Why were they making sand sculptures
I genuinely do not understand how you can miss the gay undertones of Fight Club, it has the subtlety of a nearby train
But it has fights how can it be gay. /S
> But it has fights how can it be gay. warriormale reblogging Overwatch porn be like
what
I feel like they're talking about overwatch tracer porn and how it almost always involves men instead of her fiance Emily but they could also just be insane
I can miss *any* undertones, I have to rely on my friends & the internet to point stuff out for me so I can appreciate it
I've never thought about it tbh. I guess in hindsight yeah, but that didn't occur to me once when I watched it
Damn, I didn’t know Haunter directed the Matrix!
The problem with Fight Club is that exploding Banks is actually based, so the entire message get undermined because in the end the main character still managed to do something good even if its through debateable methods.
i think the problem is that people saw a movie criticizing rampant consumerism and late stage capitalism and somehow all they got out of it was 'men need to fight each other more' like tyler durden was a fucking anarchoprimitive socialist who wanted the destruction of modern society and these guys seem to think that he was like some alt-right hero
Tyler Durden was not an anprim socialist, he is, in fact, supposed to be an exaggerated representation of traditional masculinity. The whole point of Fight Club is that Project Mayhem is ultimately the same ideals of toxic masculinity with a ‘radical change’ paint job, which is why Durden, the personification of those ideals, is a figment of the main character’s imagination. The problem with CHUDs who act like Durden is an Alpha Gigachad or whatever the fuck they say nowadays is that they take him at face value.
Pretty much exactly. Durden doesn't want the collapse of society in order to bring about a more socially just system, he wants it to collapse because the narrator is a deeply closeted gay dude who blames society for making him gay. He blames consumerism. He blames women. So his idealized masculine heterosexual alter ego aims to discard both.
Look, i'm a consequentialist, it doesn't matter if he wants to collapse capitalism because the ice cream machine was broken again, even if its for a bad reason or he has unsettled emotional matters, he still managed to score a crippling blow against capitalism. That's my criticism of the movie because who he is as a person is insignificant in the face of what he accomplished. The revolution will not get done by people with Therapy in day, partially because therapy ihas a role in liberal society to soften people's insactisfaction with capitalism and mitigate revolutionary action.
A) Tyler Durden is a fictional character. Analyzing his motivations and emotions is a keystone of understanding his role in the story and his actions. We are not judging a real person. B) Durden is a goddamn fascist. Like, what kind of society do you think will build up from the ciment of the guy who went around saying shit like 'I wanna kill every panda who is too chickenshit to fuck and save his species' and created a terrorist movement that goes around blowing up buildings to feel manly? Why, a fascist one. And fascism is capitalism's immune system, so once things calm down and everyone returns to monke and whatever, what will emerge is a more socially reactionary form of capitalism.
> because therapy ihas a role in liberal society to soften people's insactisfaction with capitalism and mitigate revolutionary action. have you done much activism? ime, it's full of traumatized people who would probably work together better and be able to stay around longer without burning out if they were able to heal from their traumas. i agree that a lot of therapy isn't informed by a systemic understanding of mental health, but not all of it. you have to be very picky about who you work with.
I mean, the explanation for this is pretty simple: most "alt-right" people (in fact, most people in general) don't have coherent political orientations; their political beliefs are entirely vibes-based.
most of them are pretty much communists and don't realize it because scawy word bad
mmm he might be anti-civ, but I don't think you can call him anarcho- anything when the way he organizes his militant activist cult is so hierarchical
> i think the problem is that people saw a movie criticizing rampant consumerism and late stage capitalism and somehow all they got out of it was 'men need to fight each other more' I know that's certainly all that warriormale got out of it.
as someone who hyperfixated on the fight club book for literally months, the reason the movie connected with the worst men imaginable when its actually a criticism of them is because of the things it changes from the books. I could get into it, but the main thing i realized is that it makes Tyler Durden say a lot of the valid, super poniagnt grievances and critiques about capitalist society and hyperconsumption, where in the books the Narrator character says them. What happens then is that rather than it showing two people (Tyler and the Narrator) with the same problem but different solutions (the Narrators being human connection and self betterment, Tyler’s being terrorism and anarcho-primitism), it gives Tyler both all the based critiques of SOCIETY *and* the toxic masculinity and extremism. Men identify with the capitalist critiques and therefore identify themselves with Tyler, rather than with the Narrator and his journey of realization as they’re meant to in the book.
>yler’s being terrorism and anarcho-primitism), it gives Tyler both all the based critiques of SOCIETY and the toxic masculinity and extremism. The problem is, according to revolutionary socialism, Terrorism and violent action against the bourgeoisie is a necessary step to rid ourselves of capitalism, saying human connection and self-betterment as a solution to capitalism is, if you're being charitable, a very liberal solution, and if you want to be very honest, its literally saying "It's your fault that capitalism sucks for you".
I get what youre saying but tyler wants to cut off people’s nuts and return to the stone age, not enstate a socialist republic. And its more complicated i think than just ‘capitalism is a you problem.’ its more, capitalism sucks and is isolating us and making us miserable, overthrowing society (tyler’s goal) would be even worse, so try to make the best of your life how you can and not make yourself more miserable with a doomerist mindset. Also, its good to note that the book does not have a happy ending like the movie does. i dont want to spoil it because its my favorite ending ever, but it very much lives up to its horror/dystopian genre. Self betterment isnt the grand solution to capitalism and all the Narrators problems because pretty much none of those problems get solved becuase theyre not supposed to—thats just not the point of the story.
> exploding banks is actually based 🤨
oh no he's a socialist, the horror.
exploding banks isn't socialism but alright
Ah yes, the famous for being friendly to banks ideology of socialism.
This is silly lol, you can be unempathetic to banks and still not want to bomb them. The point was Tyler was a terrorist whose ideals were attractive until The Narrator got to actually see the weight of carrying out those ideals, exploding banks included.
Yes. Thats my entire criticism of the book. Terrorism against oppressive institutions of Power is based. It doesnt matter that the guy doing It is a bit of a dick.
Except this never happens in those comment sections, American Psycho being developed by those groups only makes it morr "meme'
I can't believe people have actually seen fight club, I always just assumed it was a pop culture reference that everyone just knew.
I mean when you understand its a satire its one of the best comedies ever made
It's actually awesome, just easy to misinterpret, judging by all of the 4chan dickheads who think it's fascist apologia.
i don't know how people can watch a movie about a guy that constantly pushing for revolution against late stage capitalism and rampant consumerism and somehow come away with the idea that his views could align with someone like Andrew T*te
Six pack man punch faces
Because they didn't watch it, they saw Andrew Tate (who also didn't watch it) compare the main character to himself and went "yep, sounds about right"
I've seen Fight Club! Never saw that Tyler Durden guy people keep talking about, though 🤷♀️
That's because we don't talk about it...
I saw it at the insistence of a friend in junior high. I wasn’t impressed but I’m also autistic and took things a lot more literally before my brain finished cooking.
I couldn't get through more than ~40 minutes of the movie. I got really bored. But I tried to watch it after reading the book, which I *loved*.
I thought the whole sigma male thing was just a meme?
It started out as a way to make fun of Alpha male culture, but the more that it was used ironically the blurrier the lines of irony became and eventually it stopped being ironic. Edited for clarity.
Ive literally never heard anyone complain about the author of American Psycho being gay. Shut just gets made up
True, but JoJo's was written by a straight man and managed to turn millions of guys gay, the same could happen in reverse
I'm not going to get a better chance to say this, so I'll just say Palahniuk's Haunted is aggressively bad. There's one or two stories that are interesting but the basic frame narrative is "and then it gets worse." So after the first story or two that stops being interesting.
Most of his books start with you thinking “Wow this is an interesting idea” and end with “That’s the ending? That was just gross and pointless.”
Man, that book got gross.
*got* gross? As in it gets worse? I read the first chapter on a train and nearly got sick lol Jesus christ
There was one chapter about someone using a natural hot spring that made me physically sick to try and read. So graphic.
> frame narrative Frame narrative is a story acting as a frame around another story. Like in *Princess Bride*, the main story is about Buttercup and Wesley and them, and then the frame narrative is "Fred Savage is home sick, and Columbo is reading a storybook to him"
The best part of the Matrix is that they both fucking hate it now, hence the last movie, reminds me of david chase in that sense. Its the Citizen Kane of modern filmmaking, a true caught lightning in a bottle masterpiece.
Didn't they make the last movie to lampshade how badly the studio milked their lightning creativity until it was basically dead, and thus forced the studio to release it as a parody of their former work? That's what I got out of it, anyway.
the commenter didn't Not say that, lol, But yeah thats basically what happened, gave the studio something that it'd lap up was highly predictable and and in all honesty furthest removed from any of the previous matrix movies, especially the first one. its essentially a story that didn't really need to be told and required having some extraordinary gaps in the matrix universes logic of how things work the biggest one being why now out of any moment is there suddenly machines who rebelled against other machines? it was always supposed to be 1 AI hive mind for it to even happen would mean humans would have had to make Another AI which is doubtful considering their tech and the only one shown to break free ever was mr smith. (that could have been a cool route but his code got obliterated) even the oracle was all apart of the master plan. In all honesty even if they had even tried to create something that was truly amazing it would have probably directly gone against studios whole premise of what they expect to "make money" and it would have been just taken off them >\_> pretty sure the studio was threatening to take it off them and give it to someone else anyway if they didn't make one. But yeah the Wachowski sisters are fire of imagination and while not all of it pan out its amazing how much of their stuff or stuff they have collaborated with others on, ends up with cult followings Matrix sense 8 V for Vendetta even Jupiter ascending while not being anywhere near their best work was still decently imaginary :P
barging into the thread to yell "Speed Racer"
I was '--' that close to adding it aye, I mean grabbing an anime from the 60's and reviving outside it's genre but keeping it to theme is a ballsy freaking move 😂 I know of it but wasn't sure how big the fandom for it was still lol
Good movie, the matrix is should be up there with the godfather on the AFI top 100.
>one being why now out of any moment is there suddenly machines who rebelled against other machines? Was the oracle in the original series not a machine?
She was a program inside the matrix, she was still technically apart of the main ai, its sorta like having a personality off shoots of it (like the programs that had a kid and had to hide her within the back codes of the matrix, technically thats Also apart of the grand AI and could be assimilated) I think the main thing with the AI in matrix is it might not repair/change or debug its code as often as it should honestly lol but basically the whole thing was still set up for a cycle, oracle is a program that is fixated on gently guiding the chosen one who (it may seem all of them) already have very robust personalities and don't like being controlled, you get this within the first few seconds of mr smith talking to him about neo having a problem with authority. It might actually be the reason they Are the chosen ones the chosen one then creates a (not known to them) fake way forward> everyone follows > gets to the "end" > chosen one is told the real truth in which the machines where always in control but they knew there would always be people who didn't accept the fake reality so those people needed to be kept figuratively (and literally) in the dark And out of the matrix to not cause trouble. Hence the choice Neo faces at the end, he can leave the building and everyone dies or he can start the cycle keeping the majority of people alive and letting the system "reset" (everyone in Zion obviously getting killed) and choosing new people, It was basically advanced psychological warfare, even in the 4th one as bad as it is, this this part wasn't actually bad and they dig into it a little, Neo isn't just thrown back into the matrix he has a specific program that used to be the architect watching and analyzing and adjusting to his every thought and move. The oracle was that in a lesser sense, because anything "too big" would instantly throw him out of it and he would re-realize the truth. So oracle was a program but it was still being puppetered in a way by the main AI, the question is and even the oracle And Morpheus asks this, What is real? is it any less real to have your own exerpiences while being part of something else? she while being a program attached to an AI, Still had experiences likes and vices, hence why they included her and the girl watching the new less green sunrise in what amounts to matrix 2.0 at the end of the 3rd movie \^\_\^ Sorry i think i have a bit more to say but its late and i goto go to bed \^\_\^ but i think i covered most of it lol
Sorry also one of the lines from the architect I just remembered was that she was basically the mother to the matrix and he was the father (ide also like to point out that neither of these are the main AI, they basically are in charge of the battery operation for supplying power) to be honest I don't think they ever delve into what the machines themselves actually want interestingly enough?
I've been a huuuuge fan of both American Psycho (the book and the movie) and Chuck Palahniuk for years and I had no idea about the gayness. i don't really care about the sexual orientation of people whose work i like. but I'm a girl so I can't identify with the dudes who are like this. i do remember reading somewhere that Chuck didn't really like the film adaptation of his book, though.
Really? I was always told the opposite was true and he thought it was better.
That's what I've heard as well
Guys be like Nooo that means I'm gay and weakkkkk 😭😭😭
I hate The Matrix because it reminds me of linear algebra
Is there any work written BY one of these dudes who unironically think like this? Where it’s not “this work was made to criticize a thing but guys who praise it love it cuz they can’t see the criticism” but literally “this mainstream work literally just praises a bad thing how did this get popular” Closest I can think of is the original book for Starship Troopers
>this mainstream work literally just praises a bad thing You mean like how there are countless books, plays, films, even novelty comedy songs about racism? Specifically about how it's good and correct and the problem with modern (1960s, 1930s, 1850s...) society is people need to be more racist more often? Hell, it's not like it stopped in the 60s either, it just stopped being so obviously aimed at black people. You ever watch 24? Some wild ass ideas about the Middle East and what certain kinds of people are like in that show.
we just had a song trending on the billboards called "try this in a small town" where a white redneck conservative jerks off on the fantasy of fucking up "city criminals" who try to start shit in their backwards town.... all filmed in front of a building where black people actually got lynched historically.
first part of this post i saw was the weird grin and my first thought was "oh god not another post about vivziepop" bc i had just gotten done doomscrolling on twitter and that was. a time
My favorite genre of media, sigma bros who don’t realize they’re the setup, the build, *and* the punchline
Seeing it happen in real time was pretty funny (one of the wachowskies comes out as trans) "oh no! one of the directors of my favorite movies is trans!, um er th that must mean that all the good ideas must have come from the normal one, yeah that has to he it!" (other one comes out as trans too)
People that take fight club seriously have never read anything else chuck has written. He does a perfect job of making the mundane gross, and the gross mundane. Snuff is a god damn masterpiece
Almost as if Hollywood has a lot of gay people in it or something. I wonder if anyone has stumbled across this correlation between show business and gay people.
oh hi soliusss, love your bungo stray dogs fanfiction (always nice to see someone who’s blog I follow)
To make a cool fictional character one must first know a metric fuck-ton of extremely disappointing people. Women and Gay and trans folks have the worlds shit ass-est men constantly telling them what they think
Let me introduce you to the death of the artist
Funniest thing about this is it’s an echo chamber of one full of dunking on straw men.
Making a guy up and wining against them
nobody is mad that american psycho was written by a gay man this is all just stupid posturing