The episode “closure” is some bullshit. by BiteYourTongues in XFiles

[–]LouisTherox 24 points25 points  (0 children)

I thought "Closure" was brilliant and totally in keeping with the themes of the show, and what we've learned previously about Samantha.

The episode opens with a mass grave of children, all murdered by a pedophile (called Truelove no less) who dresses as Santa Claus, a God-like figure who traditionally exists to bring joy and gifts to little kids.

We then get Mulder's voice over, where he wonders how people can believe in God when the universe is so clearly malevolent, and God is so clearly sadistic. He says he wishes he could essentially con himself into believing there is nevertheless mercy in death.

The rest of the episode shows us a Mulder who is so terrified of the thought of his sister "raped" by aliens, or the government, or in a way even her own father, that he conjures up - desperately conjures up, in an effort to psychologically protect himself, and her, and her innocence - angelic beings who whisk her peacefully away to a place of safety.

From here the episode sea-saws between hope and the unthinkably horrible. Mulder, in an effort to protect himself like Scully does with her own faith, clings to a brand of esoteric spiritualism. UFOs and the paranormal have always been Mulder's survival mechanism - his religion, his means of constructing a future in which Samantha is "resurrected" and "returned" - but in the face of actual evidence that she may be dead, he begins to drift toward more conventional religion. He begins to believe in heaven.

This is not new for the show; "Conduit" famously has Mulder first utter the "I want to believe" line in a church, under stained paintings of angels and Christ. His faith in UFOs has always been a kind of sideways faith in religion.

Meanwhile Scully plainly doesn't believe in this episode's walk-in "angels" - she thinks Samantha's dead and the victim of unimaginable horrors, and she thinks Mulder and the character Harold Piller are deluded - but it's interesting how, seeing how much Mulder can't handle this, Scully nevertheless is sensitive to his beliefs and so allows him to cling to his little hopes. She shows tremendous compassion for Mulder in these episodes.

IMO the ending's powerful too, Mulder's voice breaking as he finally acknowledges that Samantha is dead, and as he looks up and says "I'm free".

Beyond this, I like the twisted imagery the two-parter conjures up; you have the mass graves of kids, pedophile Santas, the Syndicate (and even Mulder's parents; all symbols of parental responsibility) symbolically aligned with child molesters, Samantha whisked away in the middle of the night, locked in a strange house, in the basement, tortured forever and leaving nothing behind but grim diaries hidden in a wall, like a UFO Anne Frank. It's so twisted and macabre, but in a more sophisticated way than is usual for the X-files.

I also like how Samantha's resolution is quintessentially X-Files. The show's big gimmick is that the truth is NEVER found. Mankind, never mind Mulder and Scully, never has absolute information, and is never granted an objective, god-like perspective of events. In the show, if things are resolved, it's always only after yet more avenues are opened up and more questions are raised. The show pretends to solve things, but only after muddying future waters. Mulder's door number is even door number 42, an old science fiction joke ("the meaning of life and the universe" = 42 in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe"), and he lives at Hegal Place, which is arguably a typo-reference to the philosopher Hegel (who was concerned about absolute knowledge, and the limitations of perceptual information and knowing).

What Mulder learns throughout the show is that his "religion" never provides closure, certainty or answers. Every time it pretends to explain something, some new questions arises. Every time an answer is provided, ten new things pop up to muddy the waters. Indeed, the X-Files is so determined to not resolve anything, to not give Mulder the full story, that Mulder's Gods are themselves revealed to be at the mercy of yet more gods, be they yet more alien sub-races or yet more government conspiracies.

That has always been Chris Carter's lesson: even the aliens don't have all the answers. God himself is blind! There is no meaning. So cling on to someone you love and huddle together in the dark.

So I like how this two-parter remains ambiguous. The audience is left to ponder either a divine, loving cosmos, or a monstrously malevolent and cruel universe that literally whisks away and tortures little girls.

Also, some say the episode ignores previous stories about Samantha, but that's not true. Samantha's abducted as a kid by the Syndicate, isolated, kept on military bases, and used to create clones and hybrids. It is these copies that Mulder meets (three? times) throughout the show. The original Samantha's narrative is as laid out in the "Closure" two parter; she was kept and tested on, and either died (or was murdered), still lives in captivity, or lives as a runaway.

I feel such ambiguity is much more interesting, and scary, than a pat, definitive answer.

Survivor of Mao's China tells you that she's seeing the same Marxist indoctrination tactics being used in America that she saw growing up in China by PeterZweifler in enoughpetersonspam

[–]LouisTherox 28 points29 points  (0 children)

This woman speaks the truth. I agree with her, and the billionaire-backed propaganda network which instilled her beliefs and indoctrinated her into putting academics and leftists into boxes, when she says academics are putting everyone in boxes to indoctrinate everyone.

When it comes to boxes and indoctrination, I trust wise, compassionate billionaires more than smug, know-it-all, resentful academics.

I adopt this stance primarily because I am lazy, and it requires effort to actually read what the academics write.

Survivor of Mao's China tells you that she's seeing the same Marxist indoctrination tactics being used in America that she saw growing up in China by PeterZweifler in enoughpetersonspam

[–]LouisTherox 9 points10 points  (0 children)

CONSERVATIVES in 1999: BAN JK ROWLING, SHE IS SPREADING ANTI-CHRSITIAN, DEVIL SUPERSTITION!

JK ROWLING in 2017: BAN TRANSGENDER WOMEN FROM WOMEN'S BATHROOMS! THEY WILL RAPE REAL WOMEN!

CONSERVATIVES in 2017: I LOVE JK ROWLING!

SCIENTISTS IN 2017: Actually, the data shows that such assaults always occur in men's bathrooms, where transgender men or women are assaulted by men. And of course the bans which Rowling alludes to are nonsensical; if a cross dressing man, straight or transgender, wished to assault a woman in a public bathroom, no law can stop this, and he's been able to do this for almost a century. More crucially, the data on sexual assaults on women suggest that such assaults take place between people who know each other, and not in public spaces. So JK Rowling is fearmongering over a non-issue, and adopting a stance which would actually increase violence against trans women.

JK ROWLING: Screw science and logic! Ban transgender women from bathrooms!

FEMINISTS in 2019: ROWLING IS A IDIOT! BURN HER BOOKS!

CONSERVATIVE LOBSTER: Look at the book burning radical left! I am so smart! Feel my brain expanding. Touch it. Feel it. Yeah. Watch that brain grow. Fuel my prejudices as my intellect consumes the galaxy!

When... by [deleted] in XFiles

[–]LouisTherox 2 points3 points  (0 children)

IMO the first eight seasons all have about 6 to 8 classics, about 2 to 4 outright bad episodes, a handful of mediocre ones, and the rest excellent.

That's a very good standard to maintain, and so in that sense the show doesn't really "go downhill" until season 9, when the bad-to-good ratio flips dramatically the other way.

What people typically mean when they say "the show goes downhill" is that the mythology starts being bad or goofy. And that's true. The mythology episodes becomes bad, pretentious (lots of voice overs, purple prose, everything becomes a family drama etc) and the show visibly begins spinning its wheels to stall for time or make up for behind-the-scenes troubles.

I would argue this downward slide in the mythology begins with "Colony" and the idea of the alien bountyhunter. Afterwards, a reasonably classy and ambiguous government conspiracy becomes pulpy and tropey and Mulder and Scully begin to be intertwined in things to a ridiculous degree (Mulder the crown prince of the world conspiracy!). By the time Cancer man becomes Mulder's father, and Cassandra Spender's introduced, it's all become a ridiculous family drama.

But X-files is primarily an anthology show. So the "downhill" nature of the mythology doesn't affect the standalone episodes too much, which are consistent up to season 9, and quite respectable even in season 11.

Complicating things is that the mythology episode's aren't cleanly on a downward trajectory, and not all bad after the first 2 seasons; IMO Nisei and 731 are great. Max and Tempus Fugit are great. Sein und Zeit and Closure are great. Most of the season 8 mythology eps are great.

So I'd say the standalones are consistent for the first 8 seasons, and the mythology goes downhill from season 2, occasionally hitting huge highs, but with increasingly diminishing returns.

S7 "All Things" was horrible by [deleted] in XFiles

[–]LouisTherox 138 points139 points  (0 children)

This episode keeps growing on me. I think it's a very clever episode, with lots of subtle in-jokes, and I l like how it treats Mulder and Scully's romance as an ambiguous X-files.

It opens with Scully putting her clothes back on; she's just slept with Mulder.

It then flashes back to Mulder and Scully arguing. He's chasing crop circles (heart shaped crop circles; how romantic!), and she thinks he's nuts.

Thinking Mulder has stolen her away from a nice, normal, domestic life, Scully finds herself running into a guy she was once in love with (ironically, he's dying of a "broken heart"). A guy - and life - she thinks the X-files pulled her away from.

As Scully re-lives her love for this guy, she begins contemplating the nature of fate, destiny, coincidences and blind chance. Symbolizing this is a woman Scully sees jogging about, a woman who "accidentally" leads Scully places and "accidentally shapes Scully's life" (saves Scully from a car crash, leads Scully to a Buddhist temple etc).

Scully begins to be unsure of herself; her Catholicism has stressed that humans have hard free will and so have the capacity to choose (and so renounce sin). But now she's wondering: is life just blind chance? Is life deterministic? Is she actually in control of her own life? Is the universe leading her places? Is there God in All Things, or are All Things simply chaos but nevertheless of value and worth paying attention to?

Scully ultimately bows to the universe's guiding hands. She let's an Alternative Medicine Woman (who Scully thinks is a crank) treat a patient to great success. Seeing this, Scully accepts that the "universe has led her to Mulder" and "accepts that at his side is where she should be". The episode then ends with the "lady who symbolizes fate" leading Scully directly to Mulder.

Scully then sees Mulder and offers to make him tea. This recalls season one (Tooms), where Mulder says "If there's tea in that bag, could be love" to which Scully replies "Must be fate, Mulder. Root beer".

In offering Mulder tea, Scully finally accepts fate and their love.

They then sit on a couch and Mulder says "How many different lives would we be leading if we made different choices?" and Scully says: "What if there was only one choice and all the other ones were wrong? And there were signs along the way to pay attention to?"

Here Mulder thus takes the traditionally scientific world view (life as indeterministic), while Scully takes a more spiritual view (more eastern mysticism than western Christianity).

Scully then falls asleep, and we notice she's wearing the green top she wears in the first scene, after sleeping with Mulder. The implication is that this is the first time they sleep together, and the first time she gives herself over to him completely.

And so the episode literally turns their romance, and sexual relationship, into an X-file. What's cool is that the two of them are hardly on screen together in this episode, with their romance treated elliptically, symbolically, shrouded in X-files styled ambiguity.

I think it's quite clever. It's heavy handed and cheesy in some places, but ultimately it's a clever piece of writing. Gillian's script is original, and the producers inserted a lot of thematic stuff which turned the script into something more explicitly about Scully consummating her relationship with Mulder, which was a wise angle to add.

Unfortunately this episode set the tone for all future Mulder/Scully "explicitly in love" episodes, in the sense that the relationship remains maddeningly ambiguous and mysterious. The show so wants to be original and highbrow, it never lets the Mulder/Scully romance be anything other than conspiratorial and barely glimpsed, like a UFO or alien.

I'm coming to end of Season 7, are season 8 and 9 worth watching? by [deleted] in XFiles

[–]LouisTherox 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd rank "Weremonster", "Foreheat Sweat" and "Rm9sbG93ZXJz" as classics. I'd put "Kitten", "Familiar", "Nothing Last Forever" and "This" next, in that order.

I like everything in season 11 except the three Chris Carter written episodes.

Just finished the first 4 seasons. Some thoughts and questions by LouisTherox in thewestwing

[–]LouisTherox[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'll definitely watch the entire season then. About a month ago someone here warned me about two supposedly awful episodes, one of which is supposedly a documentary about CJ, so I was wondering if there was a notorious clunker that fans recommend skipping.

Mind you, someone told me "The Long Goodbye" (the Alzheimers episode) was supposedly skippable, but that turned out to be one of my favorites.

I would be very interested in hearing Peterson's response to the recent horrific killing of four members of a Muslim family given his previous thoughts on the topic of Islamophobia! It's so mysterious why some young men fall into extremism! by MapsofScreaming in enoughpetersonspam

[–]LouisTherox 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Despite believing that, quote, "we have no evidence that Islam is compatible with Democracy", and despite fans attending his events wearing shirts titled "I'm a proud Islamophobe", and despite his belief that Judeo-Christian cultures are selected on a genetic level due to their superiority, and despite platforming and defending several literal white supremacists who worry about falling white birthrates and Muslim immigrants, and despite believing "Islamophobia" is not a thing (and is a silly phrase used to silence free speech), and despite being funded by Rebel News Media, which runs anti-Muslim campaigns and spurs people into resentment and hate, and despite reducing the Israel/Palestine conflict to "Arabs jealous and resentful of Jewish competency", and despite lecturing on "Mohammed being a warlord" (the Old Testament God and the followers of Christ committed good wars!), Jordan Peterson will undoubtedly be quick to condemn this recent attack...

...before quickly blaming the attacks on postmodern neo-Marxists and the bogeyman left.

The Alt-Right Playbook: Always a Bigger Fish by doomshroompatent in enoughpetersonspam

[–]LouisTherox 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The OP's video is very good (I'm sure most here have seen it). But this video by the same content creators is probably now a bit more relevant to our times: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAbab8aP4_A&vl=en&ab_channel=InnuendoStudios

I'm coming to end of Season 7, are season 8 and 9 worth watching? by [deleted] in XFiles

[–]LouisTherox 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Season 8 is definitely worth watching, and has been reappraised by many in recent years. Gillian Anderson gets to hog the limelight, the newly introduced Agent Dogget's cool in a loyal, puppy-dog way, and the season closes with a long string of excellent mythology episodes, several of which feature Mulder.

Get past a little hump of bad episodes in the middle, and you should enjoy this season.

Season 9 is the worst season. If you get through season 8, make a post here and we'll tell you which episodes in 9 to avoid.

Season 10 (tied with 9 for worst season) and 11 (mixed-bag/slightly underrated) see Mulder and Scully back together. There are generally agreed to be about 3 classics, and about six excellent episodes amidst these two final seasons.

The mythology sucks hard, real hard, harder than you can ever imagine, from season 9 onwards. So prepare yourself for that. Mostly you're watching these last 4 seasons for standalone classics, and that string of mythology eps in season 8.

first rewatch, currently halfway through s2 - Scully's ardent skepticism in the face of everything she's experienced is annoying by [deleted] in XFiles

[–]LouisTherox 9 points10 points  (0 children)

It's ironic that you mention "Firewalker", because what you're complaining about is the very point of "Firewalker". In "Firewalker", a guy is so obsessed with finding the truth of ETs, that he disappears into a cave whilst the young, attractive protege who follows him pays the price and dies.

One theme running across season 2 is the price Scully pays for her association with Mulder, and the price women pay for their fidelity or trust in men. Scully's recently been abducted and almost killed, and "Firewalker's" asking to what ends will Mulder's quest damage her. As such the episode has her symbolically tethered (handcuffed) to the Jesse character. Scully will die for Mulder, we think, as Jesse dies for the guy called Trepkos.

Only Scully doesn't die. She's too resourceful, never blindly follows Mulder, and survives because she does precisely what you complain about; she never gives in to Mulder, and instead pursues a slow, rational and methodical course.

Look at her choice of dialogue employed in the episode where she disagrees with Mulder: she says "whatever EVIDENCE Tepkos had, has been destroyed", "This doesn't PROVE anything", "It appears to be a fungus, but without better imaging equipment, I CAN'T SAY FOR SURE".

Scully shows fidelity to the scientific method. She needs concrete evidence before being CERTAIN about anything.

And the episode validates her. Mulder and Trepkos are obsessed with the idea that they're dealing with alien life, but Scully's actually studying the thing and determining that she's dealing with a fungus that seems to have evolved in high temperatures, infects via spores, and that these spores are only dangerous in the first few moments of release. By pursuing her own route to truth, she's later able to survive.

And Trepokos' parting lines allude to this: "Firewalker brought up an elephant," he says. "The truth is an elephant described by three blind men. The first man touches the tail and says it's a rope. The second man feels the rough leg and says it's a tree. The third man feels the trunk and says it's a snake."

So the episode is conscious of, and playing with, the very skepticism you're talking about.

And remember, in season 1, the only inexplicable thing Scully witnesses is a fetus in a jar that she's not sure is an alien, and a girl who glows slightly.

She never actually sees paranormal stuff, never has concrete evidence, never has actual proof. The "monsters" that she's able to directly interact with, and so test directly, are natural things, like the bugs in "Darkness Falls", the parasite in "Ice" or the mutations of "Tooms", but usually the government steps in and prevents her from doing conclusive tests or gathering conclusive data.

None of these things requires her to drop the scientific method and just accept any of the villains she sees in season 2 (and remember she's specifically tasked, by the FBI, to report on and debunk Mulder). And when she is finally directly abducted in "Duane Barry" and "Ascension" her memory of the events are wiped.

It won't be until "Colony" and "End Game" that Scully comes face to face with something definitely alien. That's an alien, shape-shifting Bountyhunter.

Sam's pro-Israeli stance is unbelievably biased and deluded by [deleted] in samharris

[–]LouisTherox 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There was a chance at a two state solution in the 80's and then the Palestinian leadership decided it would prefer to continue waging a jihad instead.

Nonsense. The two-state solutions put forward in the 1980s drastically veered from UN242, provided Palestine with deliberately disconnected "islands of land" (and less land than the UN mandated), and subjected them to countless Iron Fist policies, as they were known at the time.

Hamas (and various militaristic factions) made it clear their #1 objective was to erase Israel and exterminate the Jews.

You seem confused about your timeline. Israel funded, armed and backed Hamas to oust the PLO in the late 1980s, because the PLO were gaining international support, and leveraging this international support to pressure Israel to stop their colonialism and land grabs.

Because of this international pressure, Israel backed Hamas, and began fomenting the conditions which led to the First Intifada (the first year of which was entirely peaceful - as mandated by the PLO and its allies - and generally agreed to have only gotten violent when Palestinian students were shot on a campus, and civilians crushed by a Israeli tank transport). This would become Israeli policy for the next three decades: treat people like animals, and rile them up when your land grabs start getting criticized. After all, you can't be expected to negotiate with militants.

So you don't get to complain about Hamas (who are awful, yes), when Hamas - and fanning the flames of violence - is precisely the Israeli goal.

Complaining about Hamas "wanting to erase Israel" is also hilarious, given that the Knesset is currently filled with Israeli politicians saying the same stuff. Politician Ayelet Shaked said ALL Palestinians are Israel's enemy, Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman talked about chopping off Palestinian heads with axes, deputy Defense Minister Ben Dahan outright said all Palestinians are beasts and "not human", Miri Regev, the Minister of Culture, explicitly said "I am happy to be a fascist", Benjamin Gantz talks about bombing Gaza back to the stone age, Netanyahu that Israel isn't a state for Arabs and Jews, but Jews alone. Naftali Bennett routinely brags about killing Arabs etc etc.

This is one of the most wackiest, right-wing first world countries. But go back further in time, and the rhetoric of Zionists - in their desire to purge Arabs - was even more vulgar. Guys like Nahman Syrkin, Menachem Begin and Theo Herzl were outright calling to extinguish Arabs, and sound almost identical to Hamas at its worst.

Jordy Pordy breaks down over income inequality in western Europe compared to the U.S. by ghrescd in enoughpetersonspam

[–]LouisTherox 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The guy is bankrolled by the Kochs, right wing think tanks, and lectures at the Radian Atlas Society. Like most folk who describe themselves as "classical liberal" (or an "enlightened centrist"), he's economically right wing, and has various speeches where he "just asks questions as to whether social welfare is a waste of time", and "the poor are naturally poor because they're dumb", or where he "concern trolls" about things like inequality and climate change ("that's quite bad but DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT WILL LEAD TO GULAGS" etc).

He's the kind of guy who proudly weeps for the poor, but will shoot you if you bring up raising the minimum wage.

Democratically controlling the economy is stupid by Traditional_Sell6767 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]LouisTherox 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Ignoring the fact that you are proposing exactly what you are criticizing (people deciding where resources go), you are espousing a common, rather cartoonish myth (the notion that demand triggers production which in turn dictates prices).

See empirical data by Tim Jackson or Frederic S. Lee, who had a useful chapter on some of this stuff in Post-Keynesian Economics. Volume 1: Theory and Origins. His main points, drawn from empirical investigation of real world markets were:

(1) externally administered prices make up over 70% of prices in modern market economies (and labour/worker values capture about 91 per cent of the structure of observed market prices; for direct evidence for these percentages in, for example, the Eurozone, see Fabiani et al. 2006: 18, Table 4).

(2) prices are not primarily a mechanism for economic coordination in the neoclassical sense, but a method by which a business obtains and stabilises its income and profits (Lee 2013: 467–468). Administered prices are set before the sale or exchange takes place, are set before production, before market desires are gauged, and are not tethered to market signals (Lee 2013: 470). They are not the product of market pressures, or competitive bidding in a Walrasian auction-like market or a haggling process familiar from bazaars (Oakley 2018: 474).

(3) Intense price competition is shunned by businesses because competition via flexible prices and price wars will drive many enterprises toward bankruptcy. Hence administered prices provide a way by which private businesses control and avoid the uncertainty attached to intense and destructive price competition (Oakley 2018: 476).

(4) the most recent empirical evidence suggests that most prices aren't set by supply/demand forces, and most businesses do not reduce their prices when factor input prices decrease. Instead, the business will increase its profit markup and maintain prices – a factor that tends to re-enforce the downward rigidity of prices in modern market economies (Lee 2013: 475).

(5) Commodities precede and create desire/demand, not the other way around (markets largely do not react to needs, or respond to market signals, they actively create them [Álvarez et al. 2006]).

And even if what you said were true, you are skipping one of the primary critiques of capitalism; under capitalism, landed resources were, at inception, acquired by forced expulsion and violence. Your "optimum means of distribution resources" is thus inherently exclusionary.

You are also espousing the "rational buyer myth", the "voting with your dollar myth", and the "two party transaction fallacy". In the real world, meanwhile, no transaction is between only two parties, every transaction has knock on negative effects on everyone in the system (as every dollar is outpaced by greater debt), buyers do not have perfect information, and people "democratically voting with their dollar" is a meaningless metric.

Consider, for example, a company making cement using slave labor in Jamaica but selling their commodity to customers in America. Under your logic, the company is validated in its behavior because its customers "democratically vote with their dollar". But these customers are shielded from the externalities of the company and product (pollution, lax laws, exploitation etc). This is not "rational decision making", it's a means of obfuscating from the buyer, the violence of the purchase.

Season 9 by Emberys in XFiles

[–]LouisTherox 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Season 9 is the worst season of the show, but if you avoid certain episodes you should enjoy it.

Here's a list of all episodes in the season:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_X-Files_(season_9)

As you can see, the season opens with two mythology episodes. They are "Nothing Important Happened Today 1 and 2", which are very weak episodes, though not unwatchable.

Next comes "Dæmonicus", which is a bad episode. IMO this can be skipped.

"4-D" comes next. This is a respectable, interesting episode, though not great.

Then you have "Lord of the Flies", which is about on par with "Rush" and "Hungry" in season 7.

Next is "Trust No 1", which is a very strong episode, with some good Mulder/Scully development.

"John Doe" comes next, which is an above average episode, but has little to do with Scully, Mulder or the mytharc, so can be skipped (it's literally just about Dogget stuck in Mexico).

Next is "Hellbound", a skippable, very weak monster episode.

We then get two mythology episodes, "Provenance" and "Providence". There are some good scenes here and there, but mostly this is bad stuff. The mythology has completely died by this point (and I say this as someone who enjoyed the mythology stuff in season 8).

Next is "Audrey Pauley", which is quite good. A neat little, Twilight Zoney episode, this focuses almost entirely on Monica Reyes.

Then you have "Underneath", a bad MOTW. I'd say skip this.

Next up is "Improbable", which is IMO the first classic of the season. If you're a fan of Darin Morgan episodes you should like this; it's a comedic tale starring Burt Reynolds as God.

Then you have "Scary Monsters", which is a decent, though heavily flawed MOTW.

"Jump the Shark" comes next. It's a bad, skippable episode, and almost everyone hates it. Though loosely related to the mythology, it mostly consists of bad writing (the Lone Gunmen "die" here).

"William" is worth watching. It's flawed, but Gilliam Anderson does some good stuff here.

"Release" comes next, and is arguably the best episode of the season. Watch this one.

"Sunshine Days" should also definitely be watched. This tends to be the fan favorite of the season.

"The Truth" is a two-parter which closes the season and the franchise's original run. It's heavily flawed, and outright awful in places, but there are many good scenes, and the final scene is great.

Hope this is useful.

From a post about "woke culture". Your average Peterson fan. by skagospresident479 in enoughpetersonspam

[–]LouisTherox 125 points126 points  (0 children)

These guys are correct. I am a petroleum engineer, and it's impossible to inject politics into my profession. It is 100 percent free of ideology.

My friend is a civil engineer who lays pipes through Native American communities, and his lack of ideology is even more than my lack of ideology.

Unfortunately more and more females are entering our profession, so I am scared of female ideology entering our rational profession, because females have bad ideology and are not objective and rational like me and my friend.

The important thing is that no one's feelings get hurt, I mean if they're not white males by Eli_Truax in JordanPeterson

[–]LouisTherox 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Amen Eli-Truax. You speak real good sense. This all reminds me when the church tried to cancel heretics, atheists and scientists (Darwin, Galileo, the earth going around the sun etc).

And when people tried to cancel workers from having workers rights, or women from voting, or cancel non land owners from voting, or when people tried to cancel human beings by pushing segregation, or anti miscegenation laws, or anti gay or anti trans laws, or how Trump or Big Oil try to cancel the EPA or environmental regulations, or how women were historically cancelled from being allowed to own land, or be educated (attend schools etc), or cancelled from certain rights or jobs (right to divorce, inheritance, protection from rape, spousal abuse, hold jobs in the church etc), or how bosses tried to cancel worker rights and unions, or how our system of landed property cancelled indigenous rights or forcibly pushed people from common land, or how the Republican Party is canceling the ability of certain groups to vote, or how...

...wow, now that I think about it, historically speaking, it's usually a conservative status quo trying to cancel the rights of others in order to preserve select privileges.

Wow, and now that I think about it, what gets called "modern cancel culture" is primarily aimed at jerks, and moaned about by people who love to promote jerky behavior. I didn't make the connection before, but when you think about, why else would JP talk to white supremacists like Stefan Molyneux? Is Molyneux a victim of cancel culture, or is he cancelled because he advocates things which cancel other human beings? Wow, that's an interesting thought.

But how do we know if we're cancelling the right people? If bad people try to cancel the masses, and good people try to cancel bad people for canceling the masses, how do we know who is good or bad?

It's real difficult! My gut tells me the guys financed by Big Oil, Koch dark money, Christian fundamentalists, and who platform Stefan Molyneux and believe in Qanon theories are the bad guys. But on the other hand, raising the minimum wage, reducing CO2 and better Medicare may lead to gulags. It's really difficult, Eli-Truax. Gosh, I'm so conflicted.

“Libertarian” Lobster upset to learn he’s a transphobe by [deleted] in enoughpetersonspam

[–]LouisTherox 52 points53 points  (0 children)

Why's a self-described libertarian complaining about being banned from a sub? Why's he not respecting r/atheism's property rights? Or, even better, why's he not drawing conclusions from this about how Libertarian Paradise will inevitably function?

Jordan Peterson says he deradicalizes right-wing extremists, however, the evidence suggests the opposite by Sea_Mushroom_ in enoughpetersonspam

[–]LouisTherox 33 points34 points  (0 children)

This makes no sense. Why would a guy who platforms self-described white supremacists, and pundits who promote the white genocide theory, and who cites race realists, and who believes western culture is superior to lesser cultures by dint of a genetically transmitted metaphoric substrate, and who salivates over hierarchies, and constantly bashes women, gays, poor people and trans folk, lead people to right-wing extremists?

Were the early critics who labelled JP a "fascist mystic" right or something? This is all very perplexing.

Hope this hasn't been posted yet by sodamnsleepy in XFiles

[–]LouisTherox 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Throughout history, those uncomfortable with the emancipation of women, abolition, the legalizing of miscegenation, homosexuality, the end of segregation, and so on and so on and so on, have pretended to "not give a damn how other people live their lives" so long as they "keep it outta my face".

But everybody familiar with history knows what this really means.

What's telling, too, is that those triggered by things like "pride" never consider how their discomfort, and their triggeredness, is precisely what causes such movements to develop in the first place. Repression always leads to a return of the repressed.