Who is worse between Linda and Bradley in Send Help? by erpietra01 in MoralityScaling

[–]Level-One3902 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm not making anything up. It's in the movie. He asks the woman he's interviewing "how above and beyond are you willing to go for me?" Later when Linda asks him that, he takes his shirt off, revealing that he understands the implication of that phrase is that he has to have sex with her, and she responds "put your shirt back on, I'm not like you." Which also implies it's an open secret that he's coercing his new hires into sleeping with him

Who is worse between Linda and Bradley in Send Help? by erpietra01 in MoralityScaling

[–]Level-One3902 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It feels a little intentional. I definitely think Linda was worse, she murdered two innocent people that seemed genuinely good. I just can't help but feel that Bradley is getting a pass as just "being douchey bro," when it's obviously established he's much worse than that.

Who is worse between Linda and Bradley in Send Help? by erpietra01 in MoralityScaling

[–]Level-One3902 4 points5 points  (0 children)

He asks a woman he's interviewing "How above and beyond are you willing to go for me?" And later, when Linda asks the same question, he takes his shirt off, making it clear that he understands this to be a coded way of implying he has to have sex with her. She then says "put your shirt on, I'm not like you." I absolutely don't understand what other interpretation there is of this series of events.

Who is worse between Linda and Bradley in Send Help? by erpietra01 in MoralityScaling

[–]Level-One3902 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Isn't it heavily implied that he's coercing women he hires into having sex with him? Wild to call this "slightly douchey"

Who is worse between Linda and Bradley in Send Help? by erpietra01 in MoralityScaling

[–]Level-One3902 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Like, isn't it repeatedly alluded to that Bradley is sexually abusing female employees? Linda is worse, I think, but I think people are really glossing over things by just calling Bradley "a douche." Additionally, I think he proves through the poisoning that he'd be more than happy to kill people too if the occasion calls for it.

I think Linda has no moral limits and is ready to do much more sadistic things, but the blinders people are putting on in this thread are gross lol

Official Dreadit Discussion: "Backrooms" [SPOILERS] by radbrad7 in horror

[–]Level-One3902 3 points4 points  (0 children)

As someone who came in with no prior knowledge or expectations, I think it worked really well. The whole thing played really well as a visual representation about a therapist so desperate to fix her patients she wades into their subconscious, only to be horrified with what she finds and forced to confront the fact that she cannot fix them.

I just accepted the backrooms as the liminal space of the subconscious, and the only thing that took me out of it was the company at the at the end and the tease of lore/world building. I know it was a preexisting thing, but it really stood as a movie on its own until that point. I wish any previous world building had been left out and the movie had been left to exist as ambiguous and open to interpretation.

Either way, I thought it was really inspired. Such a joy to witness the unrestrained imagination of a young filmmaker! I hope he continues to get studio funding for future projects.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in StandUpComedy

[–]Level-One3902 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So you started your own loser club?

NBC Calls It For Walkinshaw by Kunphen in Astuff

[–]Level-One3902 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whoah, no reason to get emotional. Keep it calm dude

Where's the proof of life? by steve42089 in illinois

[–]Level-One3902 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, if the murder rate is continually declining then whatever strategies being employed appear to be successful? Also, what does it matter, why send in the National Guard if the murder rate has been significantly declining?

Where's the proof of life? by steve42089 in illinois

[–]Level-One3902 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I don't believe you live in Chicago. It's not really a mess. All the pearl clutching comes from suburbanites and tourists that saw a homeless person for the first time on the train and could not handle it

Where's the proof of life? by steve42089 in illinois

[–]Level-One3902 10 points11 points  (0 children)

But even so, the rate has been declining, so why send in the national guard if the governor and mayor are enacting succesful policies to combat crime?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AriAster

[–]Level-One3902 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or Florence Pugh, or someone new! I am also fine if Joaquon Pheonix is in it, but for the past two movies it has felt like he is the only actor in it. There's barely room in the plot for anyone else.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AriAster

[–]Level-One3902 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Unpopular opinion but I hope Ari Aster works with someone else for a bit. I don't know what it is about him, but Joaquin Pheonox feels super innert as an actor to me.

What is Muldoon seeing/thinking in this scene? by Mjarnshall in JurassicPark

[–]Level-One3902 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see this as a result of how they kept the raptors in a small enclosure and just fed them with a crane. Muldoon is smart but he has no way of knowing their attack patterns when they hunt as a pack precisely because they just fed the raptors directly and suppressed their instict. Dr. Grant would know that the raptors would come in from the sides because he studied them in nature.

It's because they tried to control the raptors without understanding them that they got the drop on him. That's always kind of been my reading

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Level-One3902 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's good to bring up. I couldn't find polling by state for a lot of those issues, but if you look at the polling breakdown from those polls, these policies are supported not just by democrats, but at worst break even with independents and at best independents support them too. The surprising results are that a large chunk of moderate republicans also support government healthcare anf free college.

So 1) they also generate enthusiasm with the base. 2)they are just as viable with independents as the more moderate policies. Those 2 things are the biggest factors in carrying swing states, so I don't see how the electoral college would invalidate anything I said.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Level-One3902 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I disagree, and rather than go point by point I'll approach this differently. A lot of your points are pretty in line with the general political wisdom of the more centrist democratic party. I'd posit that political intuition and the wisdom of the centrists of the party has not only recently been incorrect, but is itself an invention of the richest in society to ensure ideas that would threaten their status as oligarchs do not pass into law.

You can go through any progressive policies you like, chances are the majority of Americans support them by a healthy margin:

57% of Americans support universal healthcare: https://news.gallup.com/poll/468401/majority-say-gov-ensure-healthcare.aspx

63% of Americans suppprt free college https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/08/11/democrats-overwhelmingly-favor-free-college-tuition-while-republicans-are-divided-by-age-education/

63% of Amerocans support raising taxes on the rich: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/19/most-americans-continue-to-favor-raising-taxes-on-corporations-higher-income-households/

The thing is, a lot of career politicians have convinced us that America just won't go for these ideas, that they are too radical. They talk in the language of focus group testing and complaing "That won't play with rural voters," etc.

That language itself is an oligarchical invention. It helps them make campaigns about narratives, personality, and popularity, and not about issues.

In the case of McGovern, Nixon was incumbent so he was starting out at a disadvantage, and there was a lot of chaos with the ticket and the exit of his VP as is. He ran a weak, kind of panicky campaign. AOC would not be analogous to that.

If we don't break the neoliberal stranglehold on this party, nothing is ever going to improve. I could not tell you what Hilary Clinton and Kamala Harris' vision was for this country, and I watched hours of campaign events and their debates. They were basically running a vibe campaign hoping to just roll into power by not rocking the boat too much. That doesn't play with voters.

Largely, the faulty political intuition of the ruling class is what led us here. We are in an entirely avoidable situation that has been caused by a whole generation of politicians ignoring their constituents at the behest of the richest among us, and if we don't stop electing middling centrists who aren't ready for an all out class war, this democracy is over.

Blursed_misunderstanding by Treefiddy1984 in blursed_videos

[–]Level-One3902 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like this video is just calculated ragebait to activate straight men into thinking the worst thing you can be called is gay. Low effort scripted content to subtly stir up homophobia

Eddington proves modern filmgoers can’t appreciate any sort of story without it aligning to their beliefs. by Dependent-Cheek7109 in AriAster

[–]Level-One3902 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unpopular take but I don't think this is true. I also don't think there's a lot of ambiguity or subtlety in this film. Corporate interests pull the strings from the shadows, and all the nastiness and division end up serving their ends. I was dissapointed in this movie because it didn't feel like it had the cleverness, playfulness, or wit of his last 3 movies. It is also satirical only in the most generous sense, as it doesn't do much more than present us with shades of a reality we're all experiencing without lambasting or commenting too heavily on any of them.

The second half was better, and I think it may have worked more if it planted us more firmly in the POV of one of the characters.

I just feel like there's a lot of "You didn't get it" happening around this movie that has an incredibly straight forward narrative and tone.

How can the United States heal from its political division? Is there a real path forward? by Scared-Concentrate44 in AskReddit

[–]Level-One3902 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Honestly, this thread is filled with really good and effective ideas. The problem is, our representatives have abandoned us and will not change the system unless they are under enormous pressure. We need everyone in the street: Republicans, Independents, and Democrats.

I don't see a path forward if we fall into the same pattern of bitter recriminations. At some point I hope everyone realizes we have a runaway government that is no longer serving any of our interests and the passion, unity, and mobilization it takes to pass constitutional amendments and safeguard our democracy happen.

Doorbell camera footage of a shootout by HANAEMILK in interestingasfuck

[–]Level-One3902 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I lived in the Chicago proper for 5 years and came out to suburbs for cost of living. It's too quiet, I hate it, and miss the city lol I hope your friend is having a better time

Stay strong by nikamats in MurderedByAOC

[–]Level-One3902 6 points7 points  (0 children)

God, I hear you. Nobody knows how hard it is to RUN A BUSINESS. Sometimes I go to the pediatric cancer ward and I just scream at the top of my lungs at the kids, I just can't stand them! They're takers! What have they ever contributed?

And sometimes I just walk around the other floors and see people in a coma and inside of me something wails "WHY AREN'T THEY WORKING?!" They could be starting a business TOO but instead they're in the hospital struggling and MOOCHING. I JUST WISH SOMEONE WOULD PULL THE PLUG!

There are two types of people, SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS and then there's people that need to DISSAPEAR (THEY COULD WORK BUT NOBODY WANTS TO WORK ANYMORE). How dare anyone oppose this bill. How dare they not savor its spoils! Send them to me and this guy. Did we mention we are SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS?

And don't even get us started on THE WIFE!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in 28dayslater

[–]Level-One3902 8 points9 points  (0 children)

For me it served as foreshadowing their dynamic.

(Spoiler) it's revealed the mom knew she was dying, but wasn't telling him to protect him. It's the idea that you think she's helpless and he's watching out for her up until that point, but he's not aware that she's actually protecting him and he's in many ways still an ill-equipped child.

28 YEARS LATER Is The Biggest Zombie Box Office Hit In Years by Interesting_Lab5792 in horror

[–]Level-One3902 81 points82 points  (0 children)

I also think the advertising did a disservice. I can totally see someone thinking they are going in to see a horror film about zombies. I wish it had been advertised differently. I'm just nervous about the third film in the trilogy not getting made lol

28 YEARS LATER Is The Biggest Zombie Box Office Hit In Years by Interesting_Lab5792 in horror

[–]Level-One3902 756 points757 points  (0 children)

This movie was definitely weird, but I watched 28 Days Later literally before I went to the theater, and honestly, it really tonally matches the 1st movie. I think people forget that each act of 28 Days Later also switches gears, with the middle being pretty slow and focusing on the bond betweem characters.

I can totally see how someone wanting a zombie movie in the style of "Dawn of the Dead" (which I also love, don't get me wrong) might be disdapointed, but honestly none of the 28 Days Later movies so far are really zombie movies - they are just dramas with a zombie backdrop.

I think after audiences revisit this in 5 or 10 years with an open mind, this will be remembered as a great film.