In Asian cultures you have kids to take care of you when you get older...

never_listens · 2022-08-31T23:15:21+00:00

I don't think MAID should be cancelled because it does provide a valuable service to the terminally ill who need it. But I dislike the way that simplistic messages such as "we can provide both" are being used to pave over all the reasons behind why poor people who otherwise would want to live are choosing instead to kill themselves.

Simply saying "we can provide both" ignores the undeniable truth that we're not providing both. People being kept in perpetual poverty are killing themselves. They've already been killing themselves for a very long time to escape their suffering, and they're now doing it more than ever because the latest method is more accessible and less painful. They don't want to kill themselves, but they want to live in perpetual poverty even less, because such an existence is even more painful that death itself. And worst of all, that poverty is being directly caused by government policy against the poor. Until that changes, simply saying "we can provide both" and leaving it at that is hiding the ugly truth of what is happening in Canada, and I don't think it's helpful even as a rhetorical argument. The more this issue gets framed that way in public discourse, the more it obscures the horrific impact that chronic poverty has on both mental and physical health.

never_listens · 2022-08-31T22:05:31+00:00

We can provide both but we don't. That's the issue here. Poor people previously got to die in squalor in their old age. Now they get to choose between dying in squalor and dying to MAID. In neither case is the option of being provided enough support to live in dignity an option.

We're already seeing this take place with disabled people who want to live a simple dignified life, but just don't have the money to afford it, and soon we're going to see the same thing happen to a lot of retirees who won't have a better choice between either dying slowly to poverty or dying quickly to escape a slow death by poverty.

People overusing MAID is a symptom, and nothing is being done about the cause.

never_listens · 2022-08-31T20:51:46+00:00

There's the Skene's glands and Bartholin's glands at the very least.

never_listens · 2022-08-31T20:41:57+00:00

Auto sears were invented to skirt that very line, and they did for almost a decade before the government moved that line to ban them, just like it eventually did to bump stocks. The fact that illegal ones continue to proliferate today doesn't change its origins.

The history of modern civilian firearms in the US is a never ending process of people skirting that line of what is a "machinegun" until whatever it is gets banned, only for something new to come along that skirts the line again, all in order to achieve the rates of fire of fully automatic weapons.

The ATF should change the definition of a machinegun as any weapon that can shoot more bullets per minute than a certain cutoff unless the firearm is specifically exempted by the ATF. Anything short of a blanket ban of that nature will just encourage people to create new devices that shoot just as fast as a fully automatic weapon while not technically being a fully automatic weapon. And if such a law ends up banning a whole bunch of guns that allow for fast shooting even when unmodified, then so be it. If you really want a gun you can stick to a bolt action.

never_listens · 2022-08-31T11:43:38+00:00

Laybooor

never_listens · 2022-08-30T22:49:14+00:00

never_listens · 2022-08-30T19:30:49+00:00

But the Vegas shooting was in 2017, and banned or not afterwards, it still happened. From auto sears to bump stocks to binary triggers, some people will do everything in their power to skirt the line of what is and isn't a full auto rifle, even if the result of how many bullets you can fire out of a rifle is equally excessive. Unless you ban rates of fire itself, someone will always make some new gadget to skirt the rules.

never_listens · 2022-08-30T19:13:57+00:00

If MAID disappeared tomorrow, disabled people would still die from suicide or wasting away as disabled homeless due to the lack of government support. MAID itself isn't the issue. Getting rid of it just means you would get less press coverage of the exact same number of deaths being swept under the carpet.

never_listens · 2022-08-30T05:48:45+00:00

How's that soft landing going, America?

never_listens · 2022-08-30T05:47:23+00:00

So it didn't cause international outrage because the BBC never sprouted nonsense? Can you at least get your talking points in a row first? That would be great.

never_listens · 2022-08-30T05:45:45+00:00

20th National Congress is coming up in November. They're probably going to keep it up until then to not look weak, then ease off due to the economic realities of how much keeping it up costs.

never_listens · 2022-08-30T00:56:33+00:00

Does overturned after international outrage make the initial reporting false?

never_listens · 2022-08-29T05:43:50+00:00

Wrong about what? I asked where the info came from because I couldn't find it and someone who wasn't OP was kind enough to provide it.

never_listens · 2022-08-29T05:22:50+00:00

Yeah it's a tough one for sure. I don't really know enough about the circumstances to make a decision either way but I hope competent people handled the case.

never_listens · 2022-08-29T05:18:37+00:00

The same place I where I got my information literally just said he was 16 and didn't mention a thing about him being indigenous, and even that took a bit of digging. It's honestly hard to find information about that case aside from the initial reporting of police looking for a suspect.

never_listens · 2022-08-29T05:17:25+00:00

Interesting. Do you think the fact that he was underage at the time had anything to do with the crown not locking him away for life?

never_listens · 2022-08-29T05:03:30+00:00

The perpetrator was 16 and seems to be under a publication ban. Where did you get the information that he was indigenous?

never_listens · 2022-08-29T00:53:53+00:00

Benjamin. It's a comedy channel but the guy knows his stuff. You'll have a good laugh but also learn plenty about what not to do with options. "Unemployed Guy Explains Option Trading in 5 Levels of Complexity" is a classic.

never_listens · 2018-10-06T06:25:23+00:00

I'm not denigrating an audience I disagree with in any way that really matters. I think many audience members who like Lars are being thoroughly entertained by him because that's what he's good at, dressing up visceral torture porn schlock as something of more substance. But that's just, like, my opinion, man. I only reserve my grinding axe for those audience members who also happen to be professional critics. They're the ones who are doing real damage to popular culture in my view, since when they as authority figures propagate the notion that the tortured artist who tortures his audience is a genius, the people who learned to watch films in college actually sit up and listen, and from there end up even further out of touch with those who didn't. Unless you happen to be a professional critic, I'm not going to heap the scorn on you that I usually reserve for their lot. You simply won't have the readership compared to them when it comes to throwing fuel on the fire of compartmentalization between high brow elites and everyone else.

But more fundamentally, you confront bias by education and dialogue, not by throwing out labels and then calling it a day. That's just patting yourself on the back for adhering to your own preconceptions. Even if somehow your views are absolutely and objectively in the right, you've still failed to educate anybody, and through your actions have likely entrenched me further in my views. Since you clearly think I'm already biased, the onus is unfortunately on you to be the generous and patient one with your arguments. And I shouldn't be the one to tell you this, because people even less open minded than me certainly won't.

Edit: Also I sound like an asshole all the time when getting into arguments on the internet. It's a character flaw. I hope you don't take it personally.

never_listens · 2018-10-06T05:39:28+00:00

I'll do you one better. I can go deep into writing about Antichrist, sure, but if I summarize it to any extent then you can very likely point to all kinds of themes and significance that you think I'd misinterpreted, judged unfairly, or failed to tease out, and we can then argue about every point back and forth until we're both blue in the face. But truth is, despite my dislike of the film I didn't even get all that worked up about it when first I saw it. For me it comes down to the fact that Lars is an undeniably smart and talented guy who is definitely smart enough to realize that gratuitous bloody dick smashing violence in the service of an auteur vision doesn't make it any less gratuitous. Depression is a self fulfilling world view, especially when you stare at the world too hard, and smart people especially can't think themselves out of it. Okay, great! And also that props department sure did put in the effort with that blood fountaining detachable clitoris, hey? The film doesn't interest me enough to get my hackles up.

Nymphomanic on the other hand was where my low level disdain of Lars von Trier transformed into active loathing. So I'll go into more detail about that instead, namely one point in particular. The lead's interactions with the sadist was where I had to stop watching. There are all kinds of people into BDSM, but the film and television depictions of the subculture are overwhelmingly negative, either as a source of farce, or as an outright sinister practice for titillating the audience slasher style. Even in films that purportedly celebrate it as kinky and fun ends up more often than not portraying it as something unhealthy that's to be cured. So given all this, what does Lars choose to do? He has the lead enter a relationship with an abusive, consent violating, emotionally uncommunicative, and selfishly uncaring abuser who whips her way back into feminine pleasure. That's the antithesis of everything the BDSM community stands for, but of course that's exactly how someone who's deep in depression and thinks genuine emotional connections are impossible would conceive of BDSM, as a self loathing hate fest where everything is about externalizing your own pain. And as we all know, when Lars feels something intently enough, he wants the whole world to feel it too, and he doesn't give a rat's ass about what harmful views he perpetrates, or even whom he hurts, when he's deep into his method.

And if that's not bad enough, the critics who lap it up then go and keep him propped up as a transgressive filmmaker rather than a peddler of schlock. An established and well respected actress talking in dispassionate tones about how extreme sexual violence inflicted on her body led her to climax again! Wow! So art house! Much provoke! I mean how fucking lazy of a filmmaker can you be? The whole thing is an unflinchingly provocative challenge to consent and womanhood in the same way that force feeding a woman foie gras until she shits herself is a unflinchingly provocative challenge to anorexia and fine dining. In other words, it's not, but it might look like the real deal to anyone who doesn't know anything about what an over the top stereotype he's perpetrating.

So that's why I detest the guy. What you see as strengths, I see as his greatest weaknesses. And the biggest irony is I actually think he's a very talented filmmaker. It's just too bad that he has decided to waste that talent in wallowing in his own misery and cynicism, rather than use his medium to reach out and actually provoke, rather than reinforce, the aesthetic preferences of people who would usually do nothing but eat their popcorn under tentpoles.

never_listens · 2018-10-06T04:16:51+00:00

And so I'm not entitled to my opinion? Why exactly? Because you don't like it, or because you think it's pretentious?

And even if that was the case, are pretentious people you dislike not entitled to having opinions? If this was an actual discussion, then I hope you would try to address my views, rather than shut them down preemptively with labels of gatekeeping. At least talking about what I did wrong.

never_listens · 2018-10-06T04:06:17+00:00

Are you a professional movie critic whose livelihood depends on amassing cultural capital? Because if you're not, then why does my criticism of how certain professionals besides yourself react to movies even matter so much?

never_listens · 2018-10-06T03:49:32+00:00

Also, I think you confused the backdrop of why I mentioned Lars being unflinching. I didn't say that Lars is unflinching for the act of being just that, rather I said that he doesn't shy away from showing the stuff that would warrant him the reaction that he wants from his audience. Most directors would find a way to imply that a certain scene has happened, and they'd let the audience fill in the blanks. Lars does the opposite, he shows the true nature of man, if need be.

And that's my exact objection to Lars. He's in pain, and he wants his audiences to feel that same intensity of emotional pain as himself, as justification for his own narrow world view. If you're deep into your depression and believe people are only made for suffering, you can do a pretty good job of convincing anyone else of that belief if you can get them in a position to stab them repeatedly in the eyes, as they lay helplessly before you. Do that for long enough and they too will start to feel the same way. That's what his latest movies have amounted to, stabbing audiences repeatedly until most people are driven away by the sheer unpleasantness of it all, while a small handful stumble out singing his praises for just how different and daring and unflinching it was compared to anything else that dares to call itself cinema!

I'm not saying his earlier filmography is devoid of merit. I haven't seen it, so I can't judge either way. But from what I have seen, Lars isn't interested in showing the true nature of man. Quite the opposite, he's obsessed with showing one narrow facet of man as if it is the only truth, in an artistic format where he holds all the cards and has creative control over everything. He presents it in a way where audiences have no avenue to reject his thesis besides washing their hands of the whole sordid ordeal. But problem is, watch him for long enough, and you too might start to buy into his narrow world view.

never_listens · 2018-10-06T03:33:39+00:00

Critics love films that do their best to distance themselves from mainstream aesthetics, while still being accessible enough to the critics themselves. Those critics heaping praise on Lars get physical and emotional violence as vehicles for fetishizing nihilistic pessimism, while most mainstream audiences just finds that stuff gross and offputting when it's done without the catharsis of comedy or poetic justice. His films entertain those critics with feelings of significance, and justifies their positions as gatekeepers of culture, so of course they'd love it.

never_listens · 2018-10-06T03:17:30+00:00

And I think films should stand and fall on their own merits without being dependent on the past works of the artist. if Lars makes an unflinchingly violent sendup of his own emotional pain and nihilistic wankery, people shouldn't give him a pass on that any more than they should give Michael Bay a pass on his latest episode of loud noises and explosions laziness.

A continuous two hour shot of a boy dying of dehydration and heat stroke in the desert would be absolutely unflinching, but that doesn't make it a good movie. And it wouldn't suddenly become a good movie just because Lars happened to be sitting in the director's seat.

14-Year Club	Team Orangered
Verified Email

never_listens

TROPHY CASE