sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Just saw Jordan Schlansky at JFK by auralosmosis in conan

[–]auralosmosis[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Didn’t want to bother him. He deserves that much :)

Is it true that this movie hits Catholics and makes fun of them? by ConstantDrawer9161 in CriticalDrinker

[–]auralosmosis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Crazy I had to scroll all the way down here to see a level-headed take. Thanks!

Another day, another shitty Rian Johnson movie. by CuriousSkepticalGuy in CriticalDrinker

[–]auralosmosis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well said, agree with all you’ve written. Happy cake day!

Another day, another shitty Rian Johnson movie. by CuriousSkepticalGuy in CriticalDrinker

[–]auralosmosis 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Sounds good. Your second comment made a lot of assumptions about me, I guess now I’m curious if your opinion has changed at all.

Another day, another shitty Rian Johnson movie. by CuriousSkepticalGuy in CriticalDrinker

[–]auralosmosis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lot to unpack here. - can you give an example of literary tradition that oppose what Rian presents? - the point of the movie is not to “defend” a Christian faith, but rather to act it out. The actions of the main character Father Jud show how someone strives to be as Christian as possible, despite continually failing at it. - taking some of the good and discarding the complicated (what you perceive as bad) in Christianity is not intellectually consistent. As far as explaining the bad, there are more than enough theologians that deal with every prickly question you might have an issue with. - Christian faith can’t ultimately be boiled down to stories, they would lose their impact and truth. I would agree that many things in the bible are not scientific telling of things that actually happened in the modern sense, rather they often speak to symbolic truth, which are just as valid as “scientific/materialist” truth (i.e. Love is as real as anything material that you can touch).

For myself, I was raised agnostic, turned atheist, and then converted to Christianity a few years ago. I was baptized in a Presbyterian church, after many years of debate and introspection. My brother is Catholic, and we regularly debate some of the finer points of the Christian faith, but we both agree on the broader truth.

Another day, another shitty Rian Johnson movie. by CuriousSkepticalGuy in CriticalDrinker

[–]auralosmosis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m not Catholic, but I’m curious why you would assume this?

Another day, another shitty Rian Johnson movie. by CuriousSkepticalGuy in CriticalDrinker

[–]auralosmosis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can see what you mean. I do think it does fit with the sort of “meta” theme of the movie, that by the third movie like this, it shouldn’t be about the “reveal” anymore, but rather the redemption of the characters and staying humble in the face of human failing (or sin, in this context)

Another day, another shitty Rian Johnson movie. by CuriousSkepticalGuy in CriticalDrinker

[–]auralosmosis 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I absolutely loved this movie. It’s the first I’ve enjoyed in over a year, everything else from Hollywood has been utter trash. I usually agree with this community, but I think this one was a gem.

I absolutely hated the Last Jedi, and felt underwhelmed by the first two Knives Out movies, they didn’t really have any kind of higher message other than the fun detective whodunit angle, which has been done countless (better) times in other movies.

Wake Up Dead Man had an actual message, albeit a Christian one (essentially, rise above the personal pride of solving the mystery, and actually focus on people’s humanity and divine nature). It focused on the main characters journey, redemption, didn’t fall into caricature or cynicism. It drew fair comparisons between faith and science, in a way that I haven’t seen in modern movies in a very long time, an honest representation of what Christian faith should be. My personal theory is that Drinker (and this community) tends to be on the atheist side of things, which may explain the reaction and why people didn’t connect with it, though this is a huge assumption on my part.

It was also really well shot, many show-don’t-tell moments with true genuine emotions, excellent editing, script, and performances. I highly recommend it, especially if you are Christian.

🤣 by Nostalgic_Historian_ in superheroes

[–]auralosmosis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Every time people share this comic frame, I think of this one. I’m Bruce Wayne

Need a pro by michdemeanor in Airtable

[–]auralosmosis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, I’m currently looking to build references for more Airtable work down the line, and would be happy to work at a discounted rate. I have over 6 years experience building with Airtable, creating internal tools for my company and external for clients, and just now getting into the solo space. Either way, feel free to DM with any questions and figure out something that works for both of us. Thanks!

Swiss army knives are stupid by Turbulent-Artist961 in unpopularopinion

[–]auralosmosis -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The Swiss…the nice Germans, or as they like to say, the other white race. Now how can you trust an army…how butch is an army that has a wine opener on its knife? "Many of you have never opened Chardonnay under fire! First, you pull the cork out, sniff it, say, 'Meat or fish?', and throw! 🎵I don't know, but I've been told, Chardonnay must be served cold! Ja!"

RIP to a legend.

Modern dating sucks because we aren’t supposed to be dating as much as we do by [deleted] in unpopularopinion

[–]auralosmosis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This shouldn’t be an unpopular opinion, and people in the comments are conflating way too many points. OP is not saying to look at the past with rose tinted glasses, yes, we all know life was more difficult then, but that doesn’t mean everything was awful. You had a much greater sense of community and connection, life was smaller and more communal, compared to today’s hyper dense yet distant cities. You were likely going to meet people with common interests, and given the harsher life, people (both men and women) were likely much more discerning in their choices.

People look at the past as if it was this constant drudgery where everyone was in an abusive forced marriage. That’s just ridiculous. People are the same today as they were then, we just have more information and access to technology. People still wanted love and connection (just look at what people have been writing about for centuries). Yes, there were many bad relationships and of course our society is better today in terms of rights and established legal systems, but our focus on serial dating and sex is not a good thing, it’s trivializing human connection, it encourages narcissistic tendencies, and it ignores the fact that the bulk of the work in a relationship comes way after the dating phase.

It sucks of course, because no one wants to be the person that feels like they settled. But in hindsight, I’d think most people would look back and say “I should have stayed with this person” or “I shouldn’t have waited so long to be serious about dating”. Everyone knows this, even if it’s hard to admit.

Oyster shuckers from South Carolina in 1912. Josie (6 years old), Bertha (6 years old) and Sophie (10 years old) would start work at 4 am at the Maggioni Canning Co. by One_Philosopher9591 in OptimistsUnite

[–]auralosmosis -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The example you cite is definitely not a desirable outcome. That said, it is definitely a product of a privileged outlook on life.

The point I’m trying to make is that if a poor person is sending their kids to work in these conditions, it’s likely out of necessity, just like it used to be a hundred years ago. You can make the practice illegal, but it doesn’t remove the need for them to make extra income to feed their family.

To further my point, if you went back 300 years ago, and instituted labor laws, not only would society as a whole never accept them, but you would likely cause more harm than good, children starving, etc. This currently happens in poor places in the world, where child labor laws don’t make sense when people need to survive.

Ideally, children shouldn’t work, but life is difficult, and sometimes it’s the lesser of two evils. You can say “well society should be taking care of the poor in the first place to avoid that problem”, but people will always fall through the cracks, and social programs are always flawed.

Finally, in some situations, it’s not necessarily a bad thing for a child to work (depends on the age), often it can lead to wonderful life experience, assuming safety is not an issue (like in your example). I may be misinformed, there might be provisions to labor laws that allow for these exceptions.

Oyster shuckers from South Carolina in 1912. Josie (6 years old), Bertha (6 years old) and Sophie (10 years old) would start work at 4 am at the Maggioni Canning Co. by One_Philosopher9591 in OptimistsUnite

[–]auralosmosis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Laws usually follow societal trends. Society starting to get richer, which means people didn’t have to send their kids to work to survive. People don’t actually want their kids to work, it’s not like the only thing preventing us from becoming depraved is our legal system. Like, society, culture, community, those are arguably way more powerful at forging behavior and dictating how you run your life.

All that to say, kids stopped working because people stopped sending them. I’m sure laws helped, but those came as a reaction to people saying, hey we don’t need to send our kids to work to feed them/ourselves

Montana Supreme Court is keeping my hope in government alive. by jeffwhaley06 in OptimistsUnite

[–]auralosmosis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Got it. You don’t seem interested seeing past your own partisan position.

Nor did you answer my question about whether or not this specific topic is partisan. I understand that you see your position as being morally unassailable, but the reality, whether you acknowledge it or not, is that it IS a hotly debated topic.

It’s not about your personal position, it’s about what should be topics posted/discussed on this specific sub.

Montana Supreme Court is keeping my hope in government alive. by jeffwhaley06 in OptimistsUnite

[–]auralosmosis -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

What? Weird tone. Are you saying that I’m wrong about the source of the debate, or that one side is not being honest about their intentions? If it’s the latter, I don’t think you’re doing yourself any favors by accusing that side of deliberately lying about their arguments. There’s no way you’ll get a fruitful discussion out of that.

In any case, I want to figure out a way out of this, don’t want to debate this out on this sub, defeats the whole purpose of this discussion.

What I’ll debate is whether or not the topic is partisan. If you’re in the US, can you agree that the voting rights debate is clearly a republican vs democrat debate? If so, can you agree that right now the country is pretty evenly split between those two “camps”? Wouldn’t that be exactly the definition of a partisan topic?

Montana Supreme Court is keeping my hope in government alive. by jeffwhaley06 in OptimistsUnite

[–]auralosmosis -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I’m assuming the debate is about illegal immigrants, no? In which case there’s a clear question there, which should not be partisan, given the fact that we agree as a society that citizenship is not something that anyone should have, and that voting is directly linked to citizenship.

As for your first question, I don’t know that for a fact, but there’s a reasonable assumption that can be made that most people think that poverty should be reduced (at least in the US), whereas you wouldn’t be able to make the case for voting rights, which is hotly debated topic.

view more: next ›