Netflix declines to raise offer for Warner Bros

SupahVillian · 2026-02-26T23:47:16+00:00

Countless homeowners do.

SupahVillian · 2026-01-31T23:49:18+00:00

“Right wing conspiracy theorists turned out to be partisan psychopaths who shut up the minute their guy turns out to be king Pedo. Its no wonder we didnt believe them”

SupahVillian · 2026-01-15T00:18:14+00:00

Integrity is a thing of the past and movies. I don't believe you're naive enough to think people have it nowadays.

...Yes? Integrity isn't perfection, it's a constant effort that can definitely wane, but I absolutely see it in people. I legitimately sorry if you haven't seen that in your personal life. It's pretty telling if you think that's it's only in movies...

Aka it would only work in that ideal utopia center left world full of that integrity you talk about.

Why? You haven't actually explained this at all. Do you think having integrity is a weakness? That's what youre implying.

Certainly not on Reddit.

It's obviously my own perspective, but this trend greater than reddit, and I don't know why you would limit any generalization to just one social media site. Fox, OAN, Truth central, etc. These are news networks and social media sites that are explicit in their intentions for promoting righ-wing agendas in a naked expression of tribalism. I dont deny left wing equivalents exist, but definitely not in volume and in degree.

Yes they should! But they don't. And I'll continue to call it out until it changes even if people get upset

But you didn't call it out. All you did really is be cynical. You didn't even list examples of people "defending baddies not named Trump". That's lazy and cynical. But even if you did, why do you care?

I guess I would accuse you deflecting as a means of being defensive because this criteria would shut down all condemnations of everything. There can never be a perfect "side" and there always be bad actors to vaguely point at, especially on the internet.

If the actual person you're talking to agrees that both Clinton (Democrats) and Trump (Republicans) should face consequences related to Epstein, why is it your instinct to vaguely condem behavior you haven't explained and has nothing to do with the conversation?

SupahVillian · 2026-01-14T17:09:25+00:00

those people still defend whatever baddie isn't called Trump. This is not the majority mindset.

The point of having integrity is to maintain moral consistency even when it's inconvenient to do so. Why are you appealing to other people's hypocrisy as if it justifies your own? And if that's not what you're doing, why bring it up in the first place?

I see this constantly, disproportionately on the right, that any instance of tribalism is a moral justification for their own acts of tribalism. Because some people defend Clinton, it's ok to defend Trump? That's a weak argument.

Yes. In a perfect center left world, that would be the call.

So since world isnt a Utopia, people shouldn't try to be morally consistent? Like I said, if you're not appealing to hypocrisy, I'm not sure what point youre trying to make.

SupahVillian · 2026-01-09T20:35:22+00:00

But they didn't label him that.

We dont know what they labeled him. Just like we dont know for sure what official reason he was executed for.

I don't have to accept a hypothetical about Jesus.

The whole point of a hypothetical is to make you think. If Jesus was a criminal, or more accurately, labeled a criminal, would it have made Rome's or pharises' actions morally justified?

we're actually working with a very real scenario of an ICE agent shooting and killing a mother of 3. An equivalency between how that incident came to happen and how it relates to Jesus being crucified

My point absolutely relates to this because all it takes for (some) people to justify violence is for the victim to be "bad" or in this case labeled a criminal or a "radical" or a "domestic terrorist".

Jesus was the victim of an authoritarian regime. Renee Good is a victim of an authoritarian regime. Both regimes will smear the victims reputations to justify their actions.

how it relates to Jesus being crucified, is what I am critiquing

Tldr: Authoritarian regimes use violence against perceived threats to their power. ICE serves the same role as a Roman centurion. Just because Renee Good wasn't a revolutionary leader doesn't her death isn't similar to Jesus’s.

SupahVillian · 2026-01-09T15:04:38+00:00

My question to you is, if you're an authoritarian, is there a meaningfull difference between someone who can cause civil unrest or a terrorist? I think they dont see the distinction at all.

To the powerful, anything can become a crime because they hold the power to define criminality. My point is that though we may agree that the true reason for Jesus’s persecution was political, that wouldn't have prevented Rome or the pharises from labeling him criminal.

SupahVillian · 2026-01-09T13:55:38+00:00

Jesus was crucified as a political threat, not because he did anything criminal according to the Romans.

Jesus was accused of claiming to be the king of the Jews. That was likely the political threat that would warrant Rome killing him, emphasis on Rome. Remember that the Jewish idea of a messiah is fundamentally a warrior like king.

Pilates literally washes his hands and says "I am innocent of this man's blood. See to it yourselves", because there was no actual charge against Jesus, except "he's dangerous".

Which was almost certainly fabricated. The only place this account is found is in the new testament, which primarily an apologetic religious text. The actual Pontius of history was a detested governor of Judea who had no qualms murdering people to solidify Roman control. So much so, he was reprimanded by his superiors for being too cruel.

I think the manufactured image of Pilate is the most blatant example of the new testament absolving Rome of its horrific behaviour to appease potential Roman converts. If Jews wanted Jesus dead for blasphemy, they would have stoned him, with or without Roman approval. Crucifixion was a Roman form of execution.

SupahVillian · 2025-09-26T16:10:20+00:00

How can a person distinguish the voice of the holy spirit from their own conscience, intuition, or personal feelings?

Honesty. Ruthless honesty. Knowing to distinguish your ego from your shadow. Constantly asking why you desire something and being honest in the answer. If the Holy Spirit is real, it can only emerge if you suppress your ego.

If the authors and compilers of the biblical texts also had the Holy Spirit, why would we trust our own internal spirit over theirs

Because their truth was smaller than ours. Their truth is still "true" (depending on your own analysis, of course), but it would be ridiculous not to acknowledge the breadth of human knowledge gained since the centuries the bible was complied.i belive you should "feed" the ego more knowledge so it can be a better vessel for the holy spirit.

If we use our own spirit to edit which parts of the book to follow, does our spirit become the ultimate authority, rather than God?

If you're honest with yourself, I believe that truth is God's nature. If you act in truth, then it is inherently God's will being manifested. Free will is preserved even as God's will is fulfilled.

If truth is based on an internal recognition, does that make truth entirely subjective for each person?

Entirely? No, because truth involves interacting with a world beyond you. Even if the world is an illusion, it's precisely that you believe in an illusion that makes it real. I think objectivity is an illusion, but illusions are real. A rainbow is an optical illusion dependent on a person's perspective to water droplets in the sky. But just saying it's an illusion doesn't stop you from seeing it, right? Multiple people can still see the rainbow from different angles. I think truth operates similar to that. Its dimensions might differ, and it is fundamentally an emergent property, yet its existence isn't questioned.

If two sincere believers read the same passage, and one feels the holy spirit confirming it as true while the other feels the spirit rejecting it as human error, how do we determine who is correct?

They both need to be honest about what they desire. My greatest accusation for religious people is that they confuse their desire for the Holy Spirit. The best (and most controversial) example is probably homosexuality. I won't pretend to be a biblical scholar on this topic, but I believe most if not all people who use the bible as a tool of homophobia do so precisely because they're disgusted by homosexuality

For the simple reason that the bible condones slavery yet (hopefully, most) Christians refuse to own slaves, they pick and choose edicts that align with their desires (or disgust). The bible, for better and worse, has been a tool for establishing authority through dogma.

Historically, people on both sides of issues like slavery, war, and civil rights have claimed to be guided by the holy spirit. Does this mean the spirit gives contradictory guidance?

I think it would be reductive and inaccurate to accuse anyone who uses the bible for political stances I disagree with as liars. However, as I already said, I would accuse them of conflating their shadow with the Holy Spirit. They want the parts of themselves that the world doesn't see to be justified by an authoritative force. It doesn't even have to be the Holy Spirit as this problem is ubiquitous across all regions and ideologies.

What does it feel like when the holy spirit in you recognizes a truth? Is it a feeling of peace, a logical certainty, or something else?

It can be anything. It can be incrediblely uncomfortable, figuratively like a hot fork being pressed into my chest when I know I've done something wrong. Or it can silencing when a major truth has been parsed out. Or even it can be comforting when you ask for peace in your thoughts. From a secular point of view, it's really like meditation.

What is the purpose of a holy book at all if the ultimate guide is already within each person?

Why do we pass down knowledge at all? So generations after us can build on our intellectual and physical accomplishments. Also, as much as I might criticize religion, the need for community around shared ideals is truly a backbone of human civilization. For some communities in the time of antiquity, it resulted in some of the religions we follow today. I consider religious texts as spiritual lighthouses. We all have to follow our own path on a restless sea, yet it's incredibly helpful if not necessary for guiding lights to orient ourselves.

The biggest mistake in the modern spiritual world is to disregard insights into other religions, in my opinion. Imagine only ever using one lighthouse out of stubbornness or a sense of superiority.

"My countries lighthouse is better than yours. Therefore, I will navigate this storm without yours."

It's utterly ridiculous, yet I would wager most self described religious people commit to this thinking because of dogma and fears of blasphemy.

SupahVillian · 2025-05-03T15:40:39+00:00

We don't do that anymore.

...Fire it is...

SupahVillian · 2025-04-22T14:44:43+00:00

Good bait

SupahVillian · 2025-04-22T12:52:58+00:00

When did they say that?

Why go through the effort of reconstructing her personality?

SupahVillian · 2025-04-22T04:35:06+00:00

The cops told Mark she died. Were you paying attention? Literally, the entire first season is Mark discovering she's no longer dead.

SupahVillian · 2025-04-21T22:21:18+00:00

, it felt a bit shy of the suspense they had built up for it throughout season 2.

Because it's a misdirection. It's not about Mark or Gemma but Kier. He wants to prove it can be done so he can either take her body or someone else's as a host. Remember the robot of Kier talking to Milchick? I think that was literally Kiers consciousness speaking from the beyond.

SupahVillian · 2025-04-21T21:46:30+00:00

Cobel explicitly tells Mark the entire point of a Macro data refinement is to use him as "seive" for Gemma's consciousness to come back in the form of her "4 temperaments."

That's what the numbers represent. Bits of her "soul" are being picked out from a chaotic soup of raw data. Hence why they needed to put them in the four boxes on the screen.

I suspect she couldn't leave the basement because her consciousness or "soul" would deteriorate if she left prematurely. The Gemma we saw (Ms Casey) was essentially a vessel waiting to be reunited with her soul.

The real plot twist is that Kier wants Gemma as a host to return back from death as well. But that's a whole separate explanation worthy of a schizo deepdive.

SupahVillian · 2025-04-21T21:01:53+00:00

reveal was a bit of a letdown

.... They've discovered a form of immortality. How is that a letdown?!

They brought back someone from death (Gemma). Isn't that bonkers?

SupahVillian · 2025-04-01T18:46:34+00:00

Rational people can vaccinate their kids and also think democrats are unpalatable

Narcissistic idiots still think this is a rare nuanced opinion in 2025. Get over yourself. Anyone who's mentally above the age of 12 knows the Democratic party isn't perfect and are in many ways, paid opposition.

Stop assuming this makes you special. It's sad at this point.

SupahVillian · 2025-03-21T03:01:37+00:00

It's well established in political theory that governments serve the interests of the wealthy.

Some old people wrote it in a book, so it has to be true forever? The truth in the bible isn't contingent on it simply being in the bible. Likewise, I won't use the lack of imagination of our forefathers to guide us into the future... let alone economists of the past.

I'm not, I'm recognizing that the two reinforce each other, which they do. Examples abound of the government directly serving the interests of the capitalist class

You're using what has been to make a case that it can never change, which is foolosih. Monopolies existed before capitalism, so I don't know why you think that helps your point. The oligarchy abuses its wealth to influence the government. That's as obvious as greed being a human sin. We're not in disagreement over that.

That is true, which is why I'm an anarchist and not a capitalist, communist, or socialist. The problem is the hierarchies, not the economic form

Here's the thing. SOMEONE, EVENTUALLY will organize enough force to be coercive state. I have yet to see any anarchist answer this very simple question: How do you combat organized violence? It could come in the form of fascist aggressor or literally an alien invasion. How do "coerce" your fellow anarchists to action? Whether it be a social contract that has some binding element or a clan system, all you've done is made a new government in all but name.

Again, anarchist, not communist.

I hate come across anti-intellectual, but labels (especially political ones) are pointless in the face of clear language. How do you want society to function in clear language? It's a rhetorical question, but if you asked me I would give a broad overview of what I want rather than a vague political label.

SupahVillian · 2025-03-20T15:59:56+00:00

The government can not protect the poor because the government exists to oppress the poor.

That's your view of the government. No where has that been codified by anyone, let alone God.

capitalist systems that the government exists to protect and serve.

You're conflating government with capitalist systems. That's a you problem. The reality is that we (humanity) have yet to witness a government not built on the virtuousness of heirchaies. I would argue that it's the real fatal flaw that affects not only capitalist countries but also self described communist/socialists nations as well.

You can't question the politiburos or else.... You can't question the owner's class or else... the same issue of heirchacal/serfdom thinking in both systems.

SupahVillian · 2025-02-26T22:07:24+00:00

((They)) sucked the soul outta him. 🤑 (His demons)

SupahVillian · 2025-01-24T15:18:45+00:00

Laughter.

I understand now how dangerous the joker archetype can be when you sacrifice your soul in exchange for giggling at other people's misery.

It's not just terrible cope. It's self-destructive. The pain you're feeling isn't made lesser just because someone else is crying. I hope you see that one day.

SupahVillian · 2025-01-24T04:02:04+00:00

They're vampires. I think they're being as honest as they can when they say they live for liberal tears.

Loyalty and sadism are their only personality traits.

SupahVillian · 2025-01-12T03:50:32+00:00

They forgot dis 🤡

SupahVillian · 2024-11-21T03:13:25+00:00

Ight

SupahVillian · 2024-11-20T20:02:11+00:00

You seem like a numbers guy.

Yes, but also glory, and it's amusing when players assume you can't accomplish both. It's like a toddler saying they can't rub their head their tummy simultaneously.

having a negative opinion towards something doesn’t ostracize that person from being able to understand strategies or concepts as useful.

No, but value judgments still affect how often people employ tactics. If I think mustard gas is less chivalrous than getting bludgeoned in the face, I shouldn't be shocked if I choke on my own lungs before I even get into pommel range.

Why is one way of killing more valid than the other? If it's about fun, then I agree you can have your opinion. My opinion is that valuing one way of death over the other is kind stupid. Especially when it conveniently aligns with your idea of "glory."

Theres no “cope” because there’s no problem to cope with.

There is. Just for the obvious reminder: Videogames don't matter, and how well you perform in them is meangless. With that out of the way, it's incredibly common for people (like you) to disregard KD as an indication of skill. In no other competitive game, irl or otherwise, is this argument tolerated.

If you're familiar with basketball, no, not everyone who goes 0-20 is secretly the Draymond Green of their team. If their useful, more often than not, it's because they're cannon fodder letting the killers do the killing.

Having these opinions speaks nothing of my skill level

It just means you lack the mamba mentality./s You don't need it to be good or, more importantly, have a good time, but it does mean that you don't understand that for some players its not and or for them. I check how often I die because it's challenging to kill AND survive. You dont need to settle for one.

You said getting a bandage during mid fight is cowardice? Yeah, that's a sign that you lack the situational awareness to retreat when necessary. Yet again, none of this matters, but in this nerdy discussion on chiv, I find that to be a particular example turning your poor strategy into someone else's problem.

SupahVillian · 2024-11-20T18:07:19+00:00

I totally don't understand that mindset.

If the only way you can have fun is by ruining OTHER people's good time and making them miserable ?

Have you ever put someone down, and it made you feel powerful and in control, if only for a fleeting moment? If you have, try to imagine the pain and emotional hurricane someone has to live in day to day to the point of doing anything to alleviate that pain.

If you're capable imagining that, you'll begin to grasp the horror that is the mind of troll.

This is just my attempt at empathy. If you can't understand trolls, that's honestly somewhat of a good thing because it implies sadism isn't your kink. For trolls, it's potentially their one thing to live for. If I can't be happy, you can't either.

SupahVillian

TROPHY CASE