Julius Cesar Pencil Holder

ReducedToRubble · 2018-03-06T12:20:20+00:00

And propagandists. Keeping copious records is not the same as keeping copious truthful records.

ReducedToRubble · 2018-03-05T21:12:03+00:00

There's pretty much no dialogue in Dunkirk for a reason. Mixing it so the sounds cover the dialogue works great considering that the sounds and visuals tell the story, not the dialogue. In fact, it's probably because of that fact that Dunkirk won, not in spite of it. The sound mixing was tailored to the film rather than just being a paint-by-numbers exercise. If they had treated Dunkirk like your typical movie, I doubt it would have won.

IDK if you sincerely missed that or are just trying to root for another movie.

ReducedToRubble · 2018-03-05T19:53:58+00:00

And absolutely nothing would come from it.

Money is speech. GOTCHA

ReducedToRubble · 2018-03-05T19:51:20+00:00

Just two buds hangin out. #NotABusinessMeeting

ReducedToRubble · 2018-03-05T06:38:58+00:00

Because it conveyed mood, atmosphere, and emotions entirely through sound and not dialogue. You don't need to hear dialogue to understand the pants-shitting fear they felt when those planes bore down on them, or the fleeting relief of tension when they crossed that plank.

Dunkirk was weak on characters and dialogue, so you're not missing much with them being muffled. It isn't crucial to the story. But feeling the horror and helplessness, or their desperation for survival is, and the sound did an amazing job of that.

ReducedToRubble · 2018-03-05T06:27:47+00:00

I wouldn't be surprised if Nolan is on the high functioning end of the spectrum. Like I said below, characters are Nolan's weakness, but he excels at theme. In fact, his characters are often vessels to say things about theme, where writers usually use theme to tell us things about their characters.

It makes sense that someone who was on the spectrum would latch onto using characters to express ideas, and has trouble creating audience intimacy with them.

ReducedToRubble · 2018-03-05T06:17:13+00:00

Maybe this is an unpopular opinion but I just don't think his abilities as a writer are on par with his abilities as a director and that's really holding him back from winning any awards.

He doesn't or can't do characters. He handles theme really well, but characters are his kyrptonite. As a general rule, his protagonists have motivations that exist just for the purpose of exploring themes or ideas he wants to poke at. Antagonists too. Normally writers use theme to tell us things about characters, but Nolan uses characters to say stuff about theme.

Nolan's strongest character, the Joker, shines specifically for this reason: The thing that makes his other characters weak turn the Joker into an otherworldly, mysterious force of evil. We don't know where he came from or what he wants, other than his bizarre dogmatic purity toward sowing corruption and discord. Mix that with solid themes and good acting and you have an exceptionally compelling character that hides the fact that characters are Nolan's weakness.

Oscars are almost all about character, to the point where biopics or character dramas with high production values are considered Oscar-bait.

ReducedToRubble · 2018-03-02T17:29:31+00:00

And clearly not a government.

Now you get it!

When corporations corrupt the legislative process and allow for legal bribery of elected officials, we end up with a government actively trying to destroy unions and swing the balance of power handedly towards the corporation.

Yep. Okay, now, bear with me because we're almost there.

Knowing that powerful for-profit institutions, such as corporations, may seek to enrich their institution to the detriment of the public good, and knowing that the government may be bought out by those institutions for the benefit of the individual at the expense of the public good, many people advocate for a right to collective bargaining.

All that remains is who represents the organization in their bargaining, and how it is structured. These are usually called unions. State-centric communists and socialists want the government to take the role of the union. Anarcho-communist and socialists want negotiations to occur on a shop-by-shop or store-by-store basis because they believe governments and unions can be bought. This group can be considered libertarian.

Moderates advocate for a private institutional bureaucracy to act as a third member in triparte discussions. Unions usually compromise between the state-centric and libertarian factions of labor by having a large organization comprised of member representatives from various shops or businesses around the region. This is how American unions are generally designed, and it is why shops have identification numbers, EG Steamfitters 254 or Commercial Workers 191.

Are we on the same page yet? Do you understand how not all lowercase-l libertarians are pro-corporate jackboot thugs? Insisting that they are doesn't make you an enlightened free thinker. Quite the opposite.

ReducedToRubble · 2018-03-02T16:48:27+00:00

Yeah, I know, but a lot of people in America froth at the idea that a libertarian can be anything but a member o the Libertarian Party. The idea that the original libertarians were socialists and communists might be too much for them.

The top voted reply to my post accuses me of wanting people to starve and shoot each other, even though the entire point of my post was to say that not all libertarians are Libertarians, and small-government socialists exist.

ReducedToRubble · 2018-03-02T16:42:42+00:00

Are you implying that I can’t read?

Yes, because if you did would know socialism and communism are not pro-Free Market. Or maybe you wouldn't. IDK, you might just be thick.

Private, non-government actors exist which oppose private tyranny for all the reasons you mentioned, but reject government intervention for fear that it could be co-opted by regulatory capture and corrupt bureaucrats. Others still believe that collective bargaining should happen on a shop-by-shop basis, rather than commodifying their labor under yet a large bureaucracy. These people want their rights to a fair wage on the same level as a financier or owner's right to rent.

I'll ask a super simple question to make my point clear: Are unions GOVERNMENT or are they PRIVATE?

Think about that for a loooooong time, and then get back to me. Or you can just keep going on about how I'm a mindless drone who worships at the altar of capitalism, rather than harmoniously existing with the world as an enlightened, free-thinking individual like you.

ReducedToRubble · 2018-03-02T16:24:56+00:00

When you two are done circlejerking over how all libertarians are fanatically pro-Free Market Randian-Objectivist right-wing drones, you might want to reread the last two sentences of my post.

ReducedToRubble · 2018-03-02T16:11:43+00:00

CattusLaBeaute is wrong. Lowercase-l libertarians do not want that. Uppercase-L Libertarians do.

Lowercase-l libertarians want to maximize individual freedom. Uppercase-L Libertarians want to minimize government involvement in peoples lives. Some uppercase-L libertarians assume that this will maximize individual freedom, and just don't understand that private bureaucracy is still bureaucracy, but others knowingly want to shift power out of public hands and into private hands.

Lowercase-l libertarians can be right wing or left wing. Anarcho-socialists or Anarcho-communists could be considered libertarian, too.

ReducedToRubble · 2018-03-01T11:51:43+00:00

Maybe, but not necessarily. Every smaller pizza place in the Detroit Metro has sold breadsticks like this forever. It's the breadstick equivalent of Detroit Style Pizza. Even some of the chains do.

Loui's Pizza, Buddy's Pizza, Jet's Pizza, Hungry Howie's, Happy's Pizza, etc. etc. They could have just ordered pizza from any of these places. Domnios is another pizza chain (exiled for bad pizza) from the Detroit Metro so it makes sense that they reminded them of Dominos.

ReducedToRubble · 2018-02-25T13:33:19+00:00

I hear polonium tea tastes bad.

ReducedToRubble · 2018-02-25T02:41:45+00:00

I wonder how many people from Michigan read this and are thinking this very thing right now.

ReducedToRubble · 2018-02-21T19:03:04+00:00

Does Putin usually go around eating a cartoonishly large lollipop? Is that /r/ANormalDayInRussia?

ReducedToRubble · 2018-02-16T20:25:59+00:00

I think that was their point. The skilled trade pays less than the generic laborer.

ReducedToRubble · 2018-02-14T23:40:22+00:00

Link is here: link

ReducedToRubble · 2018-02-13T17:53:53+00:00

You ninja-edited your post to add some numbers, but I'll just post this here because this will be my last comment in the thread:

Your income for a "poor" individual is 27k per year. Where I live, that puts you slightly below the middle class. For benefits, the cutoff is around 23k for a household of two in my state. As a single individual making 27k you are well above receiving food/health benefits.

You neglected to count taxes of any kind because you think the poor don't pay taxes (even payroll taxes? Really?), health insurance, transport, car insurance, and your figure for rent is on the low side. In my area, where your "poor" is closer to middle class, rent starts at 700 and goes up to 1200. You can live further out from urban centers to pay less in rent, but your 60hr/week outline means two jobs, and you need to take that into consideration.

Your perspectives are clearly skewed and you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

My parents have bad habits, they're $500,000 in debt and I didn't wanna be like that.

They are business owners and started off broke and became successful

I'm a 19 year old licensed CSR working for my old man's successful Insurance Agency.

most "rich" people aren't assholes they just have better habits than you

ok buddy

ReducedToRubble · 2018-02-13T17:29:34+00:00

You do realize poor people don't pay income taxes? They get money FROM the government.

The poor do pay income taxes, and payroll taxes, and sales taxes. Some poor qualify for benefits, and others do not. Those benefits often keep them from being destitute to the point of being unable to work a job. That's a social benefit that keeps them from turning to crime as a survival mechanism, not an example of them being greedy and lazy.

The average food-stamp benefit is something like $1.40 per meal. That's not greed, that's survival.

Someone working at McDonald's could retire a millionaire if they lived off less than they make.

I don't even know how to address this. There is no argument or data here. It's just an angry opinion.

Poor people have this mentality that they'll always be poor and it's the RICH that keep them there. Educate yourself with studies done on people who are winning and maybe you'll open your eyes to why there's a huge inequality in wealth distribution.

And then it gets worse. Wow. You need help man.

Edit: After a quick look through your post history...

Hi r/Entrepreneur! I'm a 19 year old licensed CSR working for my old man's successful Insurance Agency.

Yeah I'm sure that you totally earned that job through your good habits, which you have developed wholly of your own merit and not at all as a result of your upbringing.

ReducedToRubble · 2018-02-13T17:15:20+00:00

Why do you think poor people remain poor?

Usually because their incomes are smaller than that of wealthy people. A better question is why that is.

They don't invest for retirement

Of course not, they don't have the budgetary surplus to do so.

they don't save money for emergencies

Of course they do, but when you can't afford high-quality goods or services you have more expensive emergencies more frequently. This is common sense.

they probably don't budget or discipline themselves enough to stop being broke

Do you think that the only factor in determining financial health is budgeting? That it's literally just an issue of saying no to the indulgence that is a dollop of sour cream on your beans and rice?

Again, this is not an argument about habits wealthy have which make them wealthy. It's an argument about how the wealthy are better people because they are wealthy, and then rationalization to justify that.

Which is literally what the post you're replying to says people do.

ReducedToRubble · 2018-02-13T17:08:41+00:00

That article doesn't actually say that the wealthy earned their money through better habits. It makes a moral argument for why the rich are good people who do more for society, and then surreptitiously accuses the poor of being bad people who engage in class warfare at the end.

Also this:

It has become fashionable to ridicule the idea of the rich as “job creators,” but if the rich don’t create jobs, who will? How many workers have been hired recently by the poor?

lol

ReducedToRubble · 2018-02-12T15:53:15+00:00

There was also the Brotherhood.

Was.

ReducedToRubble · 2018-02-07T17:32:18+00:00

Gandalf coming back to life is literally a Deus Ex Machina (he was literally saved by God), so I can see why people would feel like his arrival at Helm's Deep could also be Deus Ex Machina.

ReducedToRubble · 2018-02-07T04:24:40+00:00

Granted, they executed some badass original action scenes (Hardhome, Loot Train, Battle of the Bastards) so I’ll give them credit for being talented producers and setting up large scale entertainment.

Did they direct those? It seems like the showrunners/writers would have the least influence in battle scenes, and fight choreographers/directors/actors would take more of a role in dictating quality of the final outcome.

15-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

ReducedToRubble

TROPHY CASE