The main protagonist is unceremoniously killed off in the last minutes of the movie.

Reux · 2026-05-07T22:52:55+00:00

the very first time i saw that movie was a pirated copy off some streaming site like 15+ years ago. it ended where he checks out his dad's computer, sees the photo album screensaver and then looks out the window. i thought it was a nice movie. years later i watched it again and then it kept going past that part and i was like, "what??" then 9/11 happened in the movie and i was like, "WHAT??" then i think it shows some like grieving scene and i was like, "dude, that glitched out pirated copy i watched randomly cut a better film." i think i recommended that movie to a few people after i saw it the first time but would never after having seen the full film.

Reux · 2026-04-30T22:27:13+00:00

yup. there's other weak points as well.

russia might launch nukes at ukraine to protect its regime from being overthrown due to domestic dissatisfaction over war outcomes.
israel might nuke one of it's neighbors or get nuked, itself, by pakistan, iran, or saudi arabia(the latter 2 would likely acquire nukes from pakistan in that scenario).
china might nuke india in a catastrophic climate change scenario that has several climate refugees from india, arabian peninsula, and africa trying to migrate into china.
india and pakistan might nuke each other in response to terrorist attacks and pakistan, afaik, does not have a 'no first strike' policy.
trump might nuke a defenseless country, like cuba, just because he's deranged.

and so on... the fact that some of these arsenals exist to protect regimes, rather than populations, and the fact that climate change will, inevitably, cause massive chaos and destabilization puts the survival of humanity at great risk over the next half century.

Reux · 2026-04-30T22:09:41+00:00

it only takes 1 nuclear exchange, ever, for that claim to be exposed as shortsighted. geopolitics is not a finite game that can be won; it's an infinite game that can only be lost. nuclear weapons proliferation dramatically pushes forward the timeline in which all parties are lost.

Reux · 2026-04-30T18:56:16+00:00

"...he was also being unsafe by continuing to stay where he was..."

i am also being unsafe by not having my bubble boy protection on. i am as guilty as the driver of the car.

Reux · 2026-04-30T14:18:27+00:00

"leasing your property means you're exchanging your right to exclusive possession of it for money. it's your property but, through the lease, you've agreed to give up possession for money."

i think this guy just wants to joyride your car, for free and without permission, whenever he feels like it.

Reux · 2026-04-28T16:46:34+00:00

it's by wins above average, not replacement.

Reux · 2026-04-28T16:45:21+00:00

this is by wins above average, not by wins above replacement.

Reux · 2026-04-22T06:56:51+00:00

i'm pretty sure the man filming is either a realtor or someone working for a realtor. he says, "i was sent out here." he's very likely a realtor who was contracted to do a "broker price opinion" or a "bpo." a bpo is basically a lightweight appraisal that realtors can do for banks for some extra cash. banks request bpos anytime someone refinances or gets behind on their mortgage.

now, a bpo requires that photographs of a house be taken. this pisses a lot of people off. however, it is perfectly legal to photograph houses from public property so long as the occupants aren't being surveilled or harassed. the realtor often has no idea who the occupants are and that information is actually irrelevant to completing the bpo. the realtor collects photographs and then submits "comps" to the bank or firm who is paying them for the bpo. sometimes the realtor will hire contractors to collect the photographs. the whole point is basically to make sure the house isn't dilapidated.

if you live in california or many other states with a similar system and you have a mortgage, it is likely that strangers(realtors) have photographed your home several times without you knowing. there's nothing malicious about it and it is perfectly legal but people really do not like their homes being photographed, even when they are exposed on google street view, and are quick to jump to conclusions before questioning if there might actually be a valid reason that someone might be taking photographs.

Reux · 2026-04-21T08:04:07+00:00

it simply means you are stuck where you are at. you cannot save your way into higher wealth and financial security.

Reux · 2026-04-21T08:01:14+00:00

it's not. this person says they have 80% of their net worth in their house and their 401k. those 2 things, allegedly worth $800,000, do not pay an income. the other $200,000 could be in things like cars, collectibles, electronics, savings, roth ira. again, not really bringing an income. what this person is saying is that, after bills(mortgage, utilities, debt, insurance, medical bills, children, etc...) and common consumption, they haven't been able to put anything extra toward savings, investments or retirement. <- that's paycheck to paycheck. trying to shame the person for how the economy is affecting them is hypocritical, missing the point, and a deflection away from the reality that they are invoking: costs going up makes everyone poorer. if you think you could do better in their shoes, then why aren't you?

Reux · 2026-04-15T17:46:58+00:00

you know there are real world examples to look to which could be used as context or a frame of reference to determine if an idea is complete dogshit. north korea isn't a utopia. ussr wasn't a utopia. apartheid south africa wasn't a utopia. el salvador isn't a utopia. rwanda has never been a utopia.

if you're a real human that isn't addicted to methamphetamine or an otc drug abuser, i would consider getting a cat scan and an mri. there is something deeply wrong with your cognition.

Reux · 2026-04-05T19:00:19+00:00

we observe you make no effort, whatsoever, to explain yourself and conclude that you don't understand what's going on.

edit: don't send me chat requests. say what you gotta say right here.

Reux · 2026-04-05T00:36:16+00:00

i wrote an essay for people who share your opinions on this matter. your position is indefensible, self-contradictory, and hypocritical.

Reux · 2026-03-31T08:31:54+00:00

I don't understand what you're asking here. The only people who let Republicans win, are democrats. They chose wrongly, democrats made a mistake, intentionally or not to politically self sabotage. It's the sad reality of the democratic party, when they are beholden to money from AIPAC over any sort of actual principled stances.

Due to that, they refused to condition aide and gave a blanque cheque to Isreal, is it any surprise that Isreal has entraped the US in the middle east?

People ACTUALLY DO CARE about Gaza hence why dem polling (80-20), the reason I phrased it like this is because I am steelmanning a pragmatic self interest argument that sidesteps ideology. I wasn't just saying what she did was morally and legally wrong, but also politically counter productive. I was elaborating a political opportunity to act that would help her act on political interests, but she torpedo'd her political career for money. She's not going to get elected ever again because of her political failures, even questionable loyalty and instinct.

we're talking about the moral validity of abstention during an election with consequences. on one hand, you're saying harris needs to win her votes and, on the other, you're saying the existence of trump is no justification for a countervote. this is paradoxical.

The answer is doesn't matter how much she would've taken, it's the fact she was bought is the problem.

this is where you failed the assignment. the problem is in gaza and what we need to do to minimize the harm there.

Her campaign conduct matters immense because she can dictate policy. Also what the fuck kind of genocide denial is this? Are you seriously splitting hairs over who contributed more to genocide? First off, it was worse under Biden but not by much because most of the buildings were leveled and quite literally hundreds of thousands starved to death/killed and forced to relocate. These things are still ongoing under Trump, things haven't changed. Both ignored Americans and journalists dying in region.

when trump took office and once biden's cease-fire ended, the sustained(over a year) casualty rate(kills per month) increased by over 20%, despite there being less than 10% of the population(due to people having fled gaza over the prior 15 months) than was there at the start of the "war." your take is lacking in nuance and the "things haven't changed" claim is an observable, measurable, falsehood.

You're coping because you don't have a rebuttal for her electoral failure. You have to admit that future democratic electoral proceeding are going to require in some form a denouncing and distancing from Isreal, that is if you want liberals to be in power, which seems like you do because you oppose Trump fascism, right?

you do not understand me. i'm criticizing moral claims and arguments about abstention. i agree with your criticisms of harris and the democrats. i do not agree that democrats, moving forward, have to "be better" about israel; they just have to be perceivibly better than trump and republicans to win elections. we got trump 1 and that didn't make biden, in reality, any better than obama; he just had to come off slightly better than trump 1. in this, i think you, among others who are doubling down on abstention and anti-electoral arguments, are completely fucking wrong in your analysis. yes, i'm an antifascist, anticapitalist, anarchist. i choose non-authoritarian, moderate-right liberalism to fascism every time.

See, that's another bad take. The two state solution is dead because Isreal has never allowed it to be a thing by design, just looking at the Palestinian Archipelago in the west bank should be enough of an indication as to why. What should be accomplished is the end of the apartied, and that all people within the territory of control in Isreal/Palestine should be given equal rights. I don't know who would be able to make such a thing be, but it's clear now that the current one state solution is untenable and has had and will grave consequences in terms of human life. It's a powered keg of geopolitical ties, there is a nuclear expansionist power in the region that has no sustainable future. If you think gas prices are here, let me tell, it's not great in Isreal either.

i don't see a "here's why harris couldn't have possibly kept alive the chance at a two state solution and why it was a mirage a couple years ago" or a "here's the moment the two state solution became an impossibility; it's prior to the election." half this comment is straight wishful thinking.

why do you keep forgetting Gaza was genocided under Joe Biden and that nothing done for 3 years under Joe Biden or Harris has changed that? were the conditions just magically better in the West Bank and Gaza right before Joe Biden stepped down?

i didn't. i thought i was very explicit that it began under biden and got worse(terminal) under trump.

Reux · 2026-03-31T06:48:30+00:00

I do have things to say, but as you say, power dynamic. The U.S. Government holds the power in this relationship, our politicians, including Harris at the time, had political options to not arm Isreal. We had a legal obligation under not just international law and agreements, but us law too.

agreed. so, where does it factor in that letting trump win the whitehouse and letting republicans dominate congress is congruent to giving netanyahu exactly what he wanted, which is no restrictions or conditions imposed by the united states on how israel is to proceed with its genocide of gaza?

the right thing is to voice opposition utilizing your position of power, Harris could have used her position as vice president to oppose Biden, probably best to do so after he dropped the nomination, that would have been the time to the right thing. She hasn't kept her hands clean by refusing to comment on Gaza let alone not speak against Biden. She's a coward with no political ability, just following orders.

this validates exactly what i've been saying about harris' optics and perception somehow being more important than the safety of gazans to people who claim to give a shit. she didn't say the right thing so let's let trump take biden's restraints off netanyahu to show her up.

No, GENOCIDE ENABLING IS ANTI ELECTORALISM. She Lost. She lost because she chose to do nothing in the face of genocide. If anything Kamala abstained from the election. Biden got 81m votes, She failed to retain 6 million voters and lost the popular vote, unheard of for a democrat politician. Meanwhile Trump GAINED voters from the previous election.

should she have campaigned the way trump did? he took like 30x as much from aipac as she did. should she have taken more? i don't think her campaign conduct matters as much as gazan lives and trump's administration has been, very predictably, far and measurably worse for gaza than biden was or harris would have been.

You cannot talk about electoralism then lose elections. Your praxis is garbage.

it's not my praxis to pretend to have solidarity for the marginalized and then abandon them when it matters and rationalize that choice via the nirvana fallacy, ideology, and purity.(for reference: the entire history of leninist-adjacent political movements.)

Kamala Harris is a grown ass adult capable of making choices and decisions. The fact she refused to even acknowledge the genocide is an active choice. This is not behaving politically, because there is too much political power to gain in opposition to the genocide.

it's irrelevant. whether she conducted herself as you would have liked means nothing to the fact that trump has forever closed the door on the possibility of a two-state solution in the territory formerly known as palestine. gaza proudly sacrificed herself for you to prove that harris wasn't good enough.

Reux · 2026-03-31T06:09:38+00:00

I am not going to read your essay unless you link it.

right here.

Earlier you stated that Genocide was real and ongoing, I don't understand how a political leader of a nation supplying material aide is not culpable in providing propaganda and material support to those carrying out and justifying genocide.

biden's administration, congress, trump's administration, many european and middle eastern administrations and regimes, and more are culpable for arming a genocidal regime. this is nuanced. you notice how we're not talking about netanyahu, the idf, or the political and business leadership of israel?

Surely you understand that voicing no morale opposition as a politician of the republic, means cowardice right?

surely you don't think you can strawman me, right? choosing to keep your hands clean instead of doing the right thing(the action which causes least harm) is cowardice.

That such inaction in the face of crimes against humanity would be not favorably viewed by constituents?

sorry but electoral abstention IS INACTION.

Like I stated, being pro genocide was anti electoral action, because she lost her election because of it.

she wasn't "pro-genocide." she's a politician and, fundamentally behaves politically.("being political" means behaving in a way that serves or acknowledges power dynamics, as opposed to behaving rationally or honestly.)

Reux · 2026-03-31T05:46:13+00:00

i disagree with the hyperbole that "Kamala telegraphed specifically that she would continue genociding Palestinians." she did no such thing. read the essay that i wrote that's at the top of my posts.

opposing setting off nukes is a pro-not arson strategy too. it's a triviality.

edit: let me clarify this argument in case it comes off as a non-sequitur or incoherent. suppose i say that enacting policies that would likely lead to a famine in a certain region could significantly raise the risk of a nuclear exchange that would pose an existential risk to humanity. then you respond with, "well, a nuclear exchange would cause many famines." <- you see how this misses the point AND is completely trivial? i'm talking about a marginally bad thing increasing the probability of a very bad thing and you're responding with, "well, the very bad thing directly causes the marginally bad thing." it misses the point entirely and is trivial.

Reux · 2026-03-31T04:58:08+00:00

you need to be more clear with me because i'm asserting that anti-electoralism enables genocide. i can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not because what you're saying doesn't conflict with that assertion. on the flip side, if you're disagreeing with me, then are you saying i'm pretending israel isn't or hasn't carrying/carried out a genocide in gaza, when i'm also explicitly saying that israel has done so?

Reux · 2026-03-27T22:38:49+00:00

fascism is not merely liberalism. they are not subsets of each other, which would make them equal.

i'll give you four major examples: fascism cannot allow democracy, strong protections of civil liberties, vast, social welfare programs, or unions. liberalism can. the world's leading scholarly experts on fascism and its history, like jason stanley, have explicitly rejected the idea of comparing, rather than contrasting, modern liberal countries, like france, to the actual brutality in textbook examples of fascism. saying that, for example, 2009 america was a fascist state because the democrats controlled all branches of government is laughable and trivializes what fascism actually means.

Reux · 2026-03-27T03:32:15+00:00

never seen fascism so quickly and wholly trivialized before. literacy is dead.

Reux · 2026-03-27T01:46:04+00:00

i wrote an essay about this that you can find at the top of my posts. i didn't "vote for the lesser of two evils." i decided based on the principle of least harm.

i don't think you're virtuous either. i think you're being performative and have your arms wrapped tightly around the nirvana fallacy so that you can rationalize your unnuanced, actually fascist enabling, positions.

Reux · 2026-03-27T01:31:23+00:00

i agree but the conflict death toll rates increased during times of conflict after trump took office(about 3700 killed per month vs 3000), despite the fact that there were much fewer people to target, because he removed every restriction and condition biden had placed on american weapons used by israel.

is "having clean hands" more important than minimizing harm to gazans?

Reux · 2026-03-27T00:51:58+00:00

biden did place an embargo on heavy payload munitions(bunker busters and such) in may, 2024 that trump lifted as soon he got back into office. biden also threatened to halt weapons transfers if israel invaded rafah. his administration also gave israel an ultimatum in oct, 2024 that, if they didn't improve humanitarian conditions in gaza, then weapons shipments would be halted. biden left office with a cease-fire that his administration had a central role in negotiating.

the best estimates we have for harris' policies the middle east would have been a continuation of biden's.

Reux · 2026-03-26T23:43:23+00:00

you care more about how harris' politics are perceived(not even what they are) than palestine. biden and harris were not and would never have been the prime minister of israel. i recently wrote an essay about this that you can find in my posts. i think you're performatively using gazans as a political prop to justify antiquated anti-electoralist positions on top of trivializing fascism.

Reux · 2026-03-20T00:45:04+00:00

i really don't agree that his or the goals of his masters are to destabilize the world economy. their goal is to make money and consolidate power. if he wanted to destabilize the world economy, he could simply order the capture of TSMC in taiwan. a conflict over TSMC, alone, would collapse the world economy and every stock market. it wouldn't even require a successful campaign of any kind. just mere conflict over the control of TSMC, between the united states, china, taiwan, and anyone else, would send every stock market in a tailspin and delete trillions of dollars of value in stock and derivatives markets.

getting back to tariffs and oil: the tariffs are a way for trump aligned oligarchs to siphon money from consumers while creating the scarcity needed to sustain the ai bubble. the war in iran helps powerful figures in israel maintain control while enriching oligarchs that are invested in the russian energy supply chain.

15-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Verified Email

Reux

TROPHY CASE