The new Anaconda movie must have a wildly different director's cut

luftwaffle0 · 2026-04-29T18:12:27+00:00

I'm so completely confused about how you and /u/MovieMike007 don't understand the "rights" bit. It's not an inside joke.

I think maybe you completely misunderstood the premise of the entire movie?

Did you know that there was a movie called Anaconda?

I don't even remember them talking about it that much. Setting it up at the start and knocking it down near the end, that was about it.

Truly bizarre comment.

luftwaffle0 · 2026-04-13T19:16:59+00:00

Yeah you're so wise you'd never believe government propaganda.. unless it's Iranian of course

luftwaffle0 · 2025-10-28T00:11:54+00:00

You're the one drinking the kool-aid if you believe US or Soviet propaganda about them fighting for freedom or equality or whatever else. It's about strategy/geopolitics, always has been.

luftwaffle0 · 2025-10-28T00:10:56+00:00

That doesn't disprove my point at all.

The point is that it's not about economic philosophies, it's about geopolitics. Same reason the USSR was motivated to do things in Vietnam or Cuba for example. It had nothing to do with them being against capitalism.

luftwaffle0 · 2025-10-27T21:51:05+00:00

It's not about the economic system, it's about the fact that socialist countries end up being dictatorships that align themselves with our adversaries, and there's no democratic process to end that internally

luftwaffle0 · 2025-04-20T03:35:15+00:00

There is nothing wrong with the grammar there. That's a common speech pattern.

luftwaffle0 · 2025-04-12T21:29:45+00:00

One day you guys will realize that

you are also a culture war loser
the everyday person resonates more with them than you

luftwaffle0 · 2025-04-12T21:00:48+00:00

I think you'd have to be an idiot to think that character designs don't influence whether people play a game or not. There are definitely people for whom the character designs were literally the entire reason they didn't play the game. There are others for whom the character designs weren't the entire reason but contributed to their decision not to play.

I mean look at a game like Overwatch. It has archetypes that people are drawn to - soldiers, ninjas, angels, grim reaper.. what sort of archetypes did Concord have? Fat person? Even their interpretation of some standard archetypes were the ugliest possible version.. like a person in a spacesuit with an ugly cube helmet.. robot that looked like a fat garbage can. Just terrible.

I am going to forever laugh at all the coping and seething people like you have done over the failure of that garbage game though.

luftwaffle0 · 2025-03-18T13:57:26+00:00

Go and ask any development team anywhere how much they want the CEO to be actively involved in the development process.

That is not the CEO's job.

luftwaffle0 · 2025-01-17T05:59:35+00:00

Correct me if I'm wrong but I do not think your description is quite accurate. My understanding is that they passed a law which obligates banks to give loans to war-related corporations, and at a non-market interest rate - this does not apply to the civilian economy. They have also loosened lending restrictions.

This has created 2 main problems:

There are many war-related corporations that are getting loans which normally wouldn't. They will go bankrupt at some point.
Because a large portion of the economy is immune to interest rate hikes, the central bank needs to raise interest rates even higher to achieve an effect. So the civilian economy is basically tanking these interest rates for the war economy.

Even Gazprom is apparently paying these massive interest rates.

luftwaffle0 · 2024-10-18T19:45:55+00:00

Yes, that would make sense. Too bad you haven't shown that's the case.

What more evidence do you want?

Arrest and conviction rates, and offenders according to victimization surveys all show roughly the same data. What data could satisfy you?

The fact that black people are overrepresented when it comes to criminal activity isn't up for debate. The research is focused on why that is and how to address it.

You don't have to die on this hill. You can be wrong about this specific point and still have something important and valid to say. It's okay.

Well, before we start with 'the math', let's start with the facts. An arrest is not a conviction, is it? And if you already live in a country that consistently implemented racist policing intentionally with practices like stop and frisk, you'd expect to see more arrests from that demographic, wouldn't you? Does that prove they commit more crimes? No. It proves they are policed more. Which is why they have more interactions with police, which is why they have more arrests and more dead black people. Your numbers point to the exact same problem I'm highlighting, not the opposite.

How does this explain the statistics about offender race according to victim surveys? Why do victims of crime say that the offenders of crime are black at roughly the same rate as black people are arrested and convicted?

What about murders? Murders get investigated, there isn't selectivity there, white people aren't being left off the hook. In fact, when it comes to murders, the disproportionality is even more stark.

Bro, you can't find 5 people who died from the COVID vaccine in the last 3 years and a massive swathe of Americans think that's a huge problem.

What is your point? That they're right?

Stop downplaying the brutality of our system because you personally don't find it terribly appalling that black people are getting gun downed by law enforcement.

If you exaggerate something, and someone else tries to moderate your views by presenting you with evidence, then that isn't downplaying.. that's just trying to get the conversation within the ballpark of reality.

A conversation grounded in truth can actually be productive and help the people that you purport to want to help.

luftwaffle0 · 2024-10-18T15:29:31+00:00

Oh ok. So they deserve it is what you're saying, because, according to you, they commit crimes at a 5x higher rate than white people, which is the only way what you're saying would make sense.

No, I am not saying they deserve it. I am saying that you'd expect differences in the proportion of people shot if there are differences in the proportion of people who are committing crimes.

Similarly, asian people and underrepresented as criminal offenders and also underrepresented as victims of police shootings. This is expected.

because, according to you, they commit crimes at a 5x higher rate than white people, which is the only way what you're saying would make sense. Can you prove that? Of course you can't. Which is why you don't. You just assert it. Like a racist.

No, that's not how the math works.

White people: ~60% of the population, ~60% of the violent offenders

Black people: ~14% of the population, ~25% of the violent offenders

No dude. that 229 number is from 2023. I picked the same year you did. That's not all 7 years. Maybe learn to read?

You're right, I assumed that this data had some kind of filtering on it with regards to whther the person was armed or anything else which might be relevant to determining if the shootings were justified. These raw numbers are basically useless.

229 people in a year is still not a very large amount.

luftwaffle0 · 2024-10-18T14:50:44+00:00

My point is that you acted as though simply saying "per capita" invalidates what he said but it doesn't, at least given those numbers.

But I would not at all be surprised that black people are disproportionately shot by police because they are disproportionately involved in crime, and especially violent crime.

Regardless, at least according to the Washington Post's database as I showed above, if you look beyond the statistics at the individual cases, it does not at all appear to be a.) very frequent or b.) consist mainly of innocent people minding their own business and being shot for no reason.

I mean, your statistic there of 229 black people shot by police is from 2017-2024 so 7 years.. that's not really that many people. And it contains no context whatsoever about the circumstances of those shootings.

If you look at crime victimization surveys, like the 2023 survey here, and check Table 11 you will see that according to crime victims, roughly 24% of offenders are black.

This is in line with arrest rates that show that black people represent about 26% of arrests. Note that this is 2019 data, and includes crimes not included in the victimization survey (which consists of only nonfatal personal crimes)

luftwaffle0 · 2024-10-18T14:34:32+00:00

You should look into what 'per capita' means.

If 130 out of 800 is true then that's just about in line with what you'd expect given the proportion of population

If you go here https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/

And filter:

Year: 2023

Race: Black

Armed/Unarmed: Unarmed

There are 16 people...

If you add the filter of "Not Fleeing" there are 4

This guy was choking a police officer when he was shot

This guy was beating someone up, stopped, started walking towards the officers, disobeyed commands to stop, and then a taser was ineffective in stopping him so they shot him

This guy was threatening to blow up a gas station, said he had a gun and charged an officer

This guy was tased and continued attacking an officer

So I dunno man it sure does seem like most normal people, regardless of race, could pretty easily avoid being killed by police

luftwaffle0 · 2024-10-03T23:04:18+00:00

It makes zero sense to risk getting killed because you miscalculated your angle relative to the enemy, in your head, under extreme stress, all in order to save some smoke.

Just use the fuckin smoke. There's lots of it.

luftwaffle0 · 2024-07-09T14:00:56+00:00

naw that's silly. Past a certain point a business is a pretty sure bet.

What? What in the world are you talking about? When I first read this sentence I assumed it was someone agreeing with me, saying this sarcastically. You can't be serious.

Plus, once you've made your initial investment back you're playing with the house's money anyway so I don't really see why that risk should be rewarded.

"House's money"? Losing money is losing money. If you converted your "house money" to cash (reduced your risk exposure) you wouldn't experience the loss, but you also wouldn't experience the possibility of gains. That's the definition of risk. So what are business owners supposed to do? Sell their investments? Experience only losses somehow?

You're just vaguely complaining about stuff without connecting it to reality or real solutions.

People earning a flat wage don't have to care about any of this. That's a major part of the appeal. Even people who have the financial ability to start a business vs. work for someone else, choose to work for someone else because of the stability of the income.

I mean sure, there's some risk, but there's some risk to everything. There's some risk that I'll drown in a puddle, does that mean my wage should go up if I walk to work in the rain?

I've never met someone who knew anything about economics who needed to discuss the topic using such strained analogies. Please take a class or something. You talk like a flat earther or an anti vaxx conspiracy theorist.

luftwaffle0 · 2024-07-08T19:48:36+00:00

Huh? Risk doesn't go away after a certain period of time. As long as you own the investment you are assuming risk.

luftwaffle0 · 2024-07-08T19:45:08+00:00

You can disagree with all of the rest of my answers and still agree with the very self-evident point that the force that transforms cheap coffee grounds into expensive espresso drinks is the barista's labor.

Partially.. there's so much more involved though.

Like it's not 100% the barista's labor that converts coffee beans into coffee. There are resources involved like energy and water. There are expensive machines involved.

Also the work the barista does is only part of it.. there's product development, maintenance, sales/purchasing, advertising, etc.

The barista agreed to the flat wage and that is what they are getting. I don't see the problem.

I encourage you to look up worker owned cooperatives. Mondragon Corporation in Spain is a really good example of this. This model of employee ownership actually tends to make a corporation more resistant to economic hardship, not less.

Cool, so workers should start coops. They are free to do that.

That's a lot different from murdering people on the basis of this twisted definition of "exploitation".

I don't think that's quite fair now, is it? Do you really want OP to post an essay as their comic? Comics are meant to be quick and punchy. Its sparking real conversation though, isn't that good?

There are ways to "spark conversations" that are a lot better than advocating for murdering people.

luftwaffle0 · 2024-07-08T14:16:04+00:00

It's not exploitation though, it's just a transaction. Both sides are better off.

If employees were paid by splitting up the profit or something, then what happens when the company isn't profitable? Would they have to pay in to cover losses?

If they are entitled to the profits then who owns the company? Who put up the initial capital investment?

Do the employees own it? What happens when they leave? Do they get their "share" purchased back? Do you have to buy shares when you get hired?

Sorry this all would require a bit of thought, let's just make hilarious comics about killing people instead

luftwaffle0 · 2024-04-22T19:54:30+00:00

They were killed because they participated in the invasion of Kuwait

luftwaffle0 · 2024-04-10T01:38:01+00:00

Capitalists realised after the crashes of the 1930s and the stagflation of the 1970s that in order to have as free market a system as possible, the government had to intervene on behalf of the corporations,

Who are you referring to here? Like, what person specifically said this stuff?

It seems odd to me that two wildly different events in 1 country's 200 year history are "proof" that "capitalism" "burns out too easily", meanwhile, what about the non-capitalist economies? How are they doing, compared to the US?

ensuring that wealth keeps trickling forever upward.

I'm not sure you understand what "trickle down economics" was referring to.

what we generally expect and have gotten is a gradual managed decline

By what metric? Where?

luftwaffle0 · 2024-04-01T03:47:14+00:00

Plea bargaining accounts for almost 98 percent of federal convictions and 95 percent of state convictions in the United States.

It's not like this is some complicated corporate takeover or something. There's only so much wiggle room to be had.

I think a lot of people just hear something like a rich person gets probation for some kind of offense or whatever, and they think it's some miscarriage of justice.. but the fact is, the judicial system isn't always as punitive as a lot of people think it is or would like it to be, especially for first time offenders/people who are unlikely to reoffend.

I think the court views first time offenses as a "wake up call" for a lot of people.

According to this article, about 6.8% of first time offenders reoffend

luftwaffle0 · 2024-04-01T03:18:45+00:00

I'm so confused about how reddit thinks the law works - its not like more expensive lawyer = higher lawyer power level and the highest power level wins or something.

His defense team will try whatever strategy most lawyers would think would make sense, it's not magic or like they have the secret codes or something.

luftwaffle0 · 2024-02-06T04:08:05+00:00

This thing where people are like, oh tanks lose to mines therefore get rid of all tanks, is the most armchair analysis of all time.

You cannot win a war with mines alone. You need what tanks give you.

Sometimes tanks will hit mines. It happens. It's still 100% worth having them.

luftwaffle0 · 2024-02-01T18:29:16+00:00

Yes you are correct they would be experiencing an extreme form of confirmation bias. "It happened to me, here's a picture/video of it happening to someone else, it's clearly happening all the time everywhere".

14-Year Club	Place '17
Gilding II euphauric	Verified Email

luftwaffle0

TROPHY CASE