Movies & TV

23618 readers

195 users here now

Rules for Movies & TV Discussion

Any discussion of Disney properties should contain a (cw: imperialism) tag. If your post isn't tagged appropriately it will be removed.
Anti-Bong Joon-ho trolling will result in an immediate ban from c/movies and submitted to the site administrators for review.
On Star Trek Sunday only posts discussing how we might achieve space communism are permitted. Non-Star Trek related content will be removed and you will be temporarily banned until the following Sunday.

Here's a list of tons of leftist movies.

AVATAR 3

Perverts Guide to Ideology

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

WhyEssEff@hexbear.net

Zoift@hexbear.net

Walk_On@hexbear.net

Infamousblt@hexbear.net

Grebgreb@hexbear.net

Are we still taking about Pluribus? I just finished ep 6. (hexbear.net)

submitted 2 weeks ago by RedWizard@hexbear.net to c/movies@hexbear.net

52 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This is a cool show. I can't help but hate Carol, and I can't figure out if the show is trying to make me hate her or if she really is supposed to be some kind of antihero. It's interesting that we have very little information about what the lives of the other individuals were like before the joining. Carol is very petit bourgeois coded, clearly your archetypical western chauvinist. She's basically monolingual, a fantasy slop mogul, deeply uncurious, self centered, and stubborn. She assumes that everyone else who is unjoined is of the same mind set, and the only other character aligned with her appears to be even more antisocial then she is.

It's hard to say what this show is really about. There was that throw away line in the second or third episode where Carol says she is the "second greatest mass murder next to Stalin" and you could read this so many ways. Yet the show makes it very clear that the world Carol wants to return to is one full of harm and violence. That her resistance to this situation actively kills people

Hopefully this doesn't turn into a show that doesn't know how it ends and keeps running on a treadmill for several sessions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 12 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

The one that gets me is the claim that they can't infect the survivors because that would require the consent of the survivors.
What do you mean?!
Hundreds of millions of people died without ever being asked if they wanted this!

[–] RedWizard@hexbear.net 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They can't do harm I think is the hitch. That means operations that cause pain and require some form of recovery. Their biological imperative allows them to infect people in harmless ways. Like kissing.

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Dying is a harm. It's one of the ultimate harms.
Also the first human infection was done by bite. Although the mice based hivemind may not have the ability to do ethical reasoning.

Edit:But also if this is the case, then the suicidal empathy with all living things exhibited by the woke mind virus is an emergent property of human ethical reasoning. Which throws the idea that it is a bioweapon for a loop.

[–] RedWizard@hexbear.net 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Sure but that was a rat brain with rat memories. I think it will reveal that the rules stem from human thought. They admit they didn't know people would die. We also know that they cannot lie but they can lie by omission.

The whole do no harm policy is really flimsy as plot device. It's either part of the virus, which doesn't make sense based on your point, or it's a manifestation of the joining stemming from human thinking, which is also silly since humans have been eating plants for all of time.

[–] decended_being@midwest.social 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

But for the remaining, they'd need stem cells which are harvested via a painful procedure, that's the consent.

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

People who were currently operating heavy machinery were infected and went into seizures. We see people fall down, we see people die. None of these people consented.

[–] decended_being@midwest.social 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Right, the in universe explanation is the spread was done initially quietly and with no harm. Then they were quickly forced to spread to everyone which unfortunately caused harm.

I agree it's not great logic, but their reasoning is they require consent for direct harm, which includes harvesting stem cells.

The bigger thing for me is the food production. Picking an orange or plucking potatoes from the ground does not do harm because those things do not have central nervous systems.

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Right, the in universe explanation is the spread was done initially quietly and with no harm. Then they were quickly forced to spread to everyone which unfortunately caused harm.

But it isn't. The issue explicitly isnt that this was an emergency requiring extenuating circumstances, or it would equally apply both to the infection of the survivors and their own food situation. They are all going to die and they have a biological imperative to spread that apply equally now as it did then.

The bigger thing for me is the food production. Picking an orange or plucking potatoes from the ground does not do harm because those things do not have central nervous systems.

There is a school of thought/religion called jainism, and I feel like their views on the value of life are pretty relevant to this discussion.