[Phoenix]

(10-27-2015 04:07 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Stefan Molyneux does a long dissection of it here

Interesting. I saw the movie, and throughout it I felt this kind of pervasive emptiness or sterility lingering in the background, the source of which I couldn't put my finger on.

Definitely some subversive shit going on with that movie.

[DeeDee]

A bit unrelated, but recently I was looking at a video of Roosh on YouTube and after it ended, it offered some suggestions, one of them being a 30 minute (yes, 30 minutes!) long video reply of some guy to some 6 minute video of Roosh (36 Things Wrong With American Women). I am not even going to link that 30 minute video here (it's easy to find, by searching for the mentioned title) but it's interesting to see how more and more people are replying and/or mentioning Roosh for the sake of getting their dose of attention from his large "fan base" and likely minded skeptics.

On another note, I also noticed in Roosh's recent samples of his "The state of man" lecture how bad his posture is. This is either due to excessive bad form during exercising and certain muscle groups causing insertion but - given the work he does - it could also be prolonged bad posture when using a computer for long periods of time in an improper position. What's that about, Roosh?

[MikeS]

(10-27-2015 04:07 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 02:32 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

That sounds like a horrible experience. It always sucks to see your worst suspicions about people confirmed. What do you mean by "post-Frozen"? I haven't seen the movie so I'm curious what that has to do with anything.

The Princesses are strong and empowered and save themselves, and the men are just distractions and playthings: true love exists between sisters, not a woman and a man. Standard Disney anti-heterosexuality programming.

Stefan Molyneux does a long dissection of it here, back before he Saw Some Shit and the light went out in his eyes.

Listened to the first six minutes. I'm sure he'll make some good points along the entire hour (I won't stick around to hear them) about this particular Disney movie but around minute 5 it sounds like he's got a bit of a beef with fantasy and sci-fi fiction in general and prefers that his fiction conforms strictly to realistic real world events and possibilities (never mind his opinion that magic in fiction "always represents phychosis", and the tangents he goes off on from that conclusion).

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(10-27-2015 02:02 PM)MikeS Wrote:  

Listened to the first six minutes. I'm sure he'll make some good points along the entire hour (I won't stick around to hear them) about this particular Disney movie but around minute 5 it sounds like he's got a bit of a beef with fantasy and sci-fi fiction in general and prefers that his fiction conforms strictly to realistic real world events and possibilities (never mind his opinion that magic in fiction "always represents phychosis", and the tangents he goes off on from that conclusion).

Yeah - I hated that too. The world must be partly a dark and sinister place to him if he means it. Fantasy, SF and imagination is part of life and a joy of the creative process. And sometimes magic does happen in the world - magical moments of wonder and strange coincidences. Not all fiction is escapism. We are creative intelligent human beings and we like to use our minds exploring new thoughts and ideas. Without that creative urge and wonder many inventions would not have happened as we find often SF writers foreseeing future technologies 50-100 years in advance. That is why you find actually way more men infatuated with fantasy and science fiction than women. Even men do that who are extremely rich and are swimming in pussy and could enjoy all the physical realities of life. We are the intellectual and creative explorers while women's fantasy is more focused on getting the best fantasy dick like Christian Grey. They are perfectly satisfied with 50 Shades, Jezebel, Frozen, fake girl moxy, fake reality TV and stupid chick flicks that are filled with more propaganda and feminism.

Also you find many areas in the world which when they lack creative fiction, then they usually lack social and technological development as well.

Harry Potter about a boy living in a mental hospital? And I guess Calvin and Hobbes is about a psychotic young boy that should be medicated and put away in a mental asylum as well?




Do you think that humans started dreaming about going to the moon while thinking only fully realistically?

[AnonymousBosch]

(10-27-2015 12:47 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Bosch, could you explain why you feel that the light has left Stefan Molyneux's eyes, and when you noticed this change in him?

Mid-to-back half on 2015. Even when the topic is light and fluffy, he's got the eyes of a Paramedic coming off a 12 hour shift, or a Firefighter after 3 days of battling bushfires: the weight of harsh knowledge. Strikes me as a dude who is now strong enough in his beliefs after being challenged by Socialists and SJW's that he is ready to fight: we need to get him into lifting.

Zelcorp and Mikes, it's got to be a year or more since I watched the video, but I thought his thrust was both 'magic' in 'Frozen' is both a metaphor for psychosis and female sexuality, and he tied that into the concept that girls will learn from the movie that female power and ability is innate and they don't have to strive to achieve anything in their lives: they'll just naturally be good at anything they ever choose to do.

You're allowed to disagree with his opinion. 'Frozen' was interesting to me though, because of how shameless the propaganda is.

When I first heard 'Let It Go' it was older women telling me how much they loved the song, and, reading the lyrics, it perfectly captures what I think of as core female psychology:

1. Everyone is watching and judging my behaviour.
2. It's just so hard to be good!
3. I want to exist in a pure emotional state, unfettered by convention and morality.

Of course Disney wants to train girls to follow the whims of their unrestrained Id: they're more likely to buy things they don't need on impulse.

Now, 'Frozen' is based on Hans Christian Andersen's 1844 tale 'The Snow Queen', and in the context of the time it was written - most likely lifted from oral folklore - magic in stories is usually a metaphor for mortal sins, and things like envy, psychosis or temptation by evil. The original tale is heavily Christian.

Disney, of course, tossed the biblical overlay out completely. They said they changed the story in the name of 'female empowerment' by making the two lead characters female, strangely-ignoring the fact that the original Snow Queen is about how Greta, a young girl, goes on a journey to discover if the boy next door - once her friend, but growing cold and distant after a splinter of a troll's mirror enters his eye - drowned in an icy river, and by refusing temptation and staying pure of heart, overcomes many difficult obstacles to save him from the evil Snow Queen.

Her love save him: her warm tears melt his heart, his tears dislodged the mirror in his eye, and their dance of joy drives away the Snow Queen. When they return home, they realise that they've grown up and are no longer children.

What's more empowering for a woman than that? Of course, this is Disney - who propagate the anti-family, anti-heterosexuality propaganda of the ABC Family network - so in their story, the parents are killed; the handsome prince is really a bad man in disguise; and the love that melts the ice becomes that between a girl and her sister, not of a healthy, loving adult relationship with a member of the opposite sex.

Bizarrely, for a movie praised by Female Typists for being about female empowerment, the cast is now two women, two men, a male snowman and a moose. The original tale had ten female characters, including family (a mourning mother and a wise grandmother whose strong moral guidance gives the girl her strength); antagonists, (the Snow Queen, a witch); allies (a Princess seeking a Prince as intelligent as her, a clever robber woman, a young robber girl, and two women who know the way and secrets of the Snow Queen's palace).

You end up with the strange situation that the new version of the tale is actually less diverse and progressive than a tale from 175 years before, which makes sense, since Feminism is based on a mythical Oppressive Patriarchy that never existed.

[HankMoody]

Roosh, I watch your videos, read your writings, and post on your forum all the time. All of this has immense value for me, and I truly hope you're deriving a financial benefit from it. I've bought many of your works, and would easily pay double for it. This forum alone allows me to hone my writing, express my ideas anonymously, and speak freely among other likeminded men.

I was a classical philosophy major in college. This is philosophy at its finest. Asking the hard questions, stirring up the mob, and creating an intellectual discourse that the silent majority wants. You've given men a voice to say that we're not okay with the feminist imperative or reeducation camps.

In terms of profit, as an attorney, people pay me money for my advice and knowledge. There's no shame in that. If your knowledge is useful, it is valuable. The money I make goes into paying my paralegal, my secretary, and putting money back into the economy.

It's possible to enrich both yourself and those around you at the same time.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(10-27-2015 04:44 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Zelcorp and Mikes, it's got to be a year or more since I watched the video, but I thought his thrust was both 'magic' in 'Frozen' is both a metaphor for psychosis and female sexuality, and he tied that into the concept that girls will learn from the movie that female power and ability is innate and they don't have to strive to achieve anything in their lives: they'll just naturally be good at anything they ever choose to do.

You're allowed to disagree with his opinion. 'Frozen' was interesting to me though, because of how shameless the propaganda is.

When I first heard 'Let It Go' it was older women telling me how much they loved the song, and, reading the lyrics, it perfectly captures what I think of as core female psychology:

1. Everyone is watching and judging my behaviour.
2. It's just so hard to be good!
3. I want to exist in a pure emotional state, unfettered by convention and morality.

Of course Disney wants to train girls to follow the whims of their unrestrained Id: they're more likely to buy things they don't need on impulse.
..

I agree with your assessment on the interpretation and the symbolism - also the symbolism presented by Molyneux - however his more dire first view is, that all those fantasy series like Harry Potter or Star Wars are all crazy imaginations of mental patients who escape into a world of wonder:

I guess all children's fairy tales should be banned and we should read 5 year olds the Wall Street journal. What a drab shitstain of imagination. But hey - I don't need to agree on everything with everyone. I am not the Social Justice Gestapo which either accepts all marxist viewpoints or you are the enemy.

Also interesting take on the Frozen songs - gotta watch it again, since I missed the other propaganda points like all families shown in the final scenes being disfunctional too.

[Hygiene]

I have a theory that these songs contain more messages than meet the eye. It is not only subtle 'go wymyn' but watch this video and see what I mean.

Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I wonder how many songs come back this diabolical.

Lyrics are below the video and I linked them here: https://ghostbin.com/paste/w98cc

[AnonymousBosch]

(10-28-2015 04:06 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

I guess all children's fairy tales should be banned and we should read 5 year olds the Wall Street journal. What a drab shitstain of imagination. But hey - I don't need to agree on everything with everyone. I am not the Social Justice Gestapo which either accepts all marxist viewpoints or you are the enemy.

LOL, nah that's cool. That's just Molyneux's framework for philosophical consideration of what is really children's entertainment: it's not a gospel anyone has to accept or deny, but simply his foundation to build upon. I find it an interesting viewpoint that did clarify a common thread I've noticed about traditional children's tale: magic is most often antagonistic.

I'm trying to think of positive uses. Cinderella? She doesn't land the handsome Prince until he sees her again as a commoner and learns to look past the dirt.

Even in children's stories that come less from a folklore perspective - say the last 150 years or so - magic, though wonderous, also has an element of danger about it - it's easy to be lost in a magical place and never grow into an adult.

If any of you guys are writers, and you want to resonate with readers, yes, I'd view magic as an unhealthy thing in your writing: use it to create wonders, sure, but always focus on the character's human virtues being more powerful.

The wonders of Oz make Dorothy, after her many challenges and trials, miss home, because home, hearth and family were the grounding that made her able to defeat evil. What do her friends what? A brain (intelligence), a heart (love), and courage (strength and bravery)? Human virtues right? Wonderland and Looking-Glass Land both are places that eventually devolve into madness and Alice is glad to return back to the comfort of the riverbank and the warmth of Dinah in her lap. Wendy chooses to return home from Neverland and age into a woman with young children of her own, because she understands that becoming an adult is more important than fantasy play.

Magic can be used for harmless charms in 'The Lord Of The Rings', but also threatens to destroy the entire world, and the power of the ring is destroyed via the humble bravery and loyalty of two hobbits - a non-magical power that exists within them. They're unable to give up because they're protecting everyone and everything they believe in and care about.

I've been reading CS Lewis' 'The Magician's Nephew' to my own nephew. Digory initially refuses to brings an apple back from Narnia that would offer his dying mother immortality at an evil price. His following acts of bravery and selflessness defeat the evil, and Aslan promises the apple will now bring 'only joy' to his mother: the gift of magic is now an act of love. (As a man who watched my mother die of Cancer, love and compassion was the only 'real' magic I could give).

Harry Potter is an interesting case. I see the magic as just window dressing for what's just a classic English Education book series: it's Enid Blyton with wizards. Strip the tale down to the core - what the Antagnoist and Protagonist wants - and you have this:

It's the tale of two boys becoming men.

One is terrified of death and tries to uses magic to cheat it.

One accepts death is the price he must pay to protect those he loves, and welcomes it, then discovers love is the most powerful magic of all.

That's the reason why those books are hugely-successful.

Once again, if you're writing fantasy and want the work to endure: focus on how magic reflects and strengthens our humanity. These are the tales that will last. What are the gospels, really?

The Marxists, of course, will take the opposite viewpoint. Their fiction will stink of magic as evidence of superiority to humanity.

[Wahawahwah]

(10-28-2015 02:49 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Harry Potter is an interesting case. I see the magic as just window dressing for what's just a classic English Education book series: it's Enid Blyton with wizards. Strip the tale down to the core - what the Antagnoist and Protagonist wants - and you have this:

It's the tale of two boys becoming men.

One is terrified of death and tries to uses magic to cheat it.

One accepts death is the price he must pay to protect those he loves, and welcomes it, then discovers love is the most powerful magic of all.

Interesting. I got a strong damsel-in-distress storyline vibe from Harry Potter, and always read Harry as being the manifestation of Rowling and Voldemort to be that of one of her exes.

Edit - Sorry for the thread derailment

<Spoilers, just in case>

Severe

Just like Cinderella, Harry (has a lot of potential) but is mistreated early on.
Then suddenly, magic happens and he is catapulted into a very special social position -- and is connected to everyone socially cool -- The Boy who Lived, Headmaster's pet, Hagrid's best friend, James and Lily's son, Sirius's (aka old bad boy who's really not bad just misunderstood and really really cool) grandson, Lupin and Tonks, "youngest seeker", goes into the "cool" house, random people ogle/come up to him, even the centaurs know who he is, without him having done anything on his own. Sounds like the everyday beautiful woman's life.

Poor orphan then gets de facto acceptance into a large family (Weasleys), where he's privy to more secrets than anyone within the family. Even at Hogwarts, the dude gossips and knows more than most people (map, invisibility cloak, polyjuice potions, hiding in trees, getting the house elves to snoop). And when he doesn't know, he resorts to snooping and rationalizing.

Also, all this time, everyone except the "selfish" Slytherins are ever ready to protect him. McGonagall, Dumbledore, Lupin, Hagrid, Firenze, even a fucking house elf (who he rescued out of the kindness of his heart)...in the final book ALL OF HOGWARTS (except the slytherins) and a few people from the Order of the Phoenix come in to protect him.

And so many pussy passes its ridiculous.
Hatched a dragon? Go with Hagrid to the forest.
Attacked a troll? 50 points to Gryffindor.
Not of legal age to play Quidditch? Change the rules.
Attacked Neville? 10 points to Neville.
Sectumsempra'd Malfoy and he almost died? Detention or something.
Stole shit from Gringotts? Joyride on a dragon.
Smashed car into the whomping willow? Warning.
Bunked lectures? Didn't get enough grades in "Potions"? Thats k, change the potions professor so the new guy'll accept your lousy grades for Aurorship.
Voldemort Avada Kedavras him? Wands connect and save him.

Starting with his parents up until the last book everyone keeps saving Potter, including the creepy Snape.
And then, when Voldemort calls him out in front of everyone, he walks like a martyr into death's arms just to save everyone else...

Contrast this with Voldy.
Comes from a "royal" family but orphaned and lousy family history.
Works his way up through the world through hard work, charm, intelligence.
Ambitious enough to become the best wizard and willing to do the dirty work.
Exhibits many dark triad traits. Inspires a cult following.
And of course, "part of him" is in Harry.

What does Harry have that Voldy doesn't?
Not superior skill, or intelligence or wealth, that would be blasphemous.
Love. Thats the only difference between them.
Voldemort doesnt understand the "power of love". And thats why he cant be saved.

So Harry lets Voldemort kill himself and they both get closure. Then he goes to the land of the dead where he and his gay friend direct snark at voldemort's tiny unsalveable image (micropenis cliches?)
After some chitchat Harry comes back and kills the big bad V --- not by the killing spell obviously, because hes only trying to defend himself.
V kills himself when the curse rebounds, and Harry's victory is complete.
He basks in the attention of his family and orbiters as he stands over the crushed, dead superbad alpha male figure (isnt this what most women would love their exes to look like, alpha or not?).

[AnonymousBosch]

Interesting theory, mate.

I suspect Rowling would have seen herself as being Emma Watson's know-it-all character. The unflattering portrait of a heroic character - at least in the books I read to my nephew, where she's described as having wild hair and huge, bucked teeth - is highly-unusual for a female writer. I'd suspect it comes out of a place of childhood inferiority and trying to redeem herself, (which is why she can never even hint at the character having feelings for Harry, instead saddling him with the red-haired comic relief guy, because she wouldn't feel worthy of him).

The fact that she decided after the fact that the character should have gotten with Harry instead of the red-haired kid makes my suspicion even stronger.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

^ It is amazing how many current fantasy stories have simply negative end-messages that are female in thinking.

Harry Potter - nothing special about him, no ambition, no wits, no discipline, but still defeats the biggest baddest magician just by luck and "love".

Contrast it with male fantasy authors who are not getting pushed by major forces like Raymond E Feist and his Midkemia books:



Pug/Milamber - a boy of modest heritage who only became the most powerful magician by being born extremely talented, highly ambitious, highly industrious and working his ass off. Essentially he is a Dumbledore or a positive Voldemort. That's what men respect - talent and skill combined.

As I read some of the Harry Potter books I was always hoping that the character would come alive and unleash his full potential. But no - he remained The Mediocre One to the very end. It also seems that the author invented this trick about the MOST POWERFUL STAFF as a final last straw of idiocy. So yeah - your bloody skill, talent, massive abilities mean jack-shit - all you had to have is the baddest magical weapon and "love and courage". Harry Potter is the biggest pusher of female mediocracy.

Women desire strange fantasies where the not-so-pretty, but charming student meets the stupendous billionaire who made his money God-knows-how but has plenty of time to workout, eat right, be 27 and have plenty of sex with her.

The idiocracy-mediocracy reader of Harry Potter goes straight to Twilight and then on to 50 Shades. Every character has massive value just by being born - voila - my magic pussy and my magic sexual value as a woman make me great. And I love and am a "strong independent" woman, thus I will win.

If you think about it - the character of Harry Potter acts more like a woman than a man. It should be the story of a girl named Harriet Potter.

The only thing going for him is his fame - the most powerful aphrodisiac for women, because fame attracts them stronger than wealth, looks or Game. Harry Potter is of course also the Better Beta character that the author married later in life:

[AnonymousBosch]

(11-05-2015 05:33 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

yeah - your bloody skill, talent, massive abilities mean jack-shit - all you had to have is the baddest magical weapon and "love and courage". Harry Potter is the biggest pusher of female mediocracy.

Whilst I see your point, I'd argue what Harry Potter is actually a statement about the traditional values of love for family, friends and community, and this builds on a long-standing tradition of English Fictional Child Heroes whose strength comes from their quiet humility and selfless concern for those they love.

Of course, this can get woefully-on the nose at times, (see Dickens), but you get characters like Lucy in 'The Chronicles Of Narnia', who sets in motion the banishment of evil through small acts of kindness; or Charlie in 'Charlie And The Chocolate Factory', who triumphs because his loving-but-poor family have kept him, basically, a good person. (Note the movie versions have to make him flawed and tempted, which says a lot about the writers).

"Love and courage" is how I'd describe Sam and Frodo's defeat of Sauron in 'The Lord Of The Rings'.

That's the reason why these tales keep resonating with succeeding generations, and critics, 'real' writers and academics, poisoned by the ugliness of post-modernism, will always hate them, and champion superior alternatives that subvert or out-right mock such 'outdated' notions.



At it's core, this trilogy is basically a tale meant for children about killing God. Audiences were indifferent enough to the movie version that the two sequels never materialised. This didn't stop the Swedish Government awarding the author a prestigious prize for children's literature, and the BBC just announced a television adaptation.

You can judge a man by the company he keeps.

---

Oh, I was curious about what Rowling though of Emma Watson's character, so looked it up:

Quote:

Rowling claims the character of Hermione carries several autobiographical influences. "I did not set out to make Hermione like me but she is...she is an exaggeration of how I was when I was younger." She recalled being called a "little know-it-all" in her youth. Moreover, she states that not unlike herself, "there is a lot of insecurity and a great fear of failure" beneath Hermione's swottiness.

[Cyr]

(11-05-2015 01:48 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 05:33 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

yeah - your bloody skill, talent, massive abilities mean jack-shit - all you had to have is the baddest magical weapon and "love and courage". Harry Potter is the biggest pusher of female mediocracy.

Whilst I see your point, I'd argue what Harry Potter is actually a statement about the traditional values of love for family, friends and community, and this builds on a long-standing tradition of English Fictional Child Heroes whose strength comes from their quiet humility and selfless concern for those they love.

Of course, this can get woefully-on the nose at times, (see Dickens), but you get characters like Lucy in 'The Chronicles Of Narnia', who sets in motion the banishment of evil through small acts of kindness; or Charlie in 'Charlie And The Chocolate Factory', who triumphs because his loving-but-poor family have kept him, basically, a good person. (Note the movie versions have to make him flawed and tempted, which says a lot about the writers).

"Love and courage" is how I'd describe Sam and Frodo's defeat of Sauron in 'The Lord Of The Rings'.

That's the reason why these tales keep resonating with succeeding generations, and critics, 'real' writers and academics, poisoned by the ugliness of post-modernism, will always hate them, and champion superior alternatives that subvert or out-right mock such 'outdated' notions.



At it's core, this trilogy is basically a tale meant for children about killing God. Audiences were indifferent enough to the movie version that the two sequels never materialised. This didn't stop the Swedish Government awarding the author a prestigious prize for children's literature, and the BBC just announced a television adaptation.

You can judge a man by the company he keeps.

---

Oh, I was curious about what Rowling though of Emma Watson's character, so looked it up:

Quote:

Rowling claims the character of Hermione carries several autobiographical influences. "I did not set out to make Hermione like me but she is...she is an exaggeration of how I was when I was younger." She recalled being called a "little know-it-all" in her youth. Moreover, she states that not unlike herself, "there is a lot of insecurity and a great fear of failure" beneath Hermione's swottiness.

Yeah I remember reading the 'Golden Compass' (and the even weirder books after it), when I was 10 and being disturbed by the whole series. Its one of the few children's book that I remember being distinctly unenjoyable to read.
I agree with you about the Harry Potter books as well. In my last year of School, I had a gay English teacher who hated the series because he felt it was too boring- (aka too fun and not subversive enough).

[AnonymousBosch]

(11-05-2015 03:24 PM)Cyr Wrote:  

I agree with you about the Harry Potter books as well. In my last year of School, I had a gay English teacher who hated the series because he felt it was too boring- (aka too fun and not subversive enough).

Actually, that's a good point that brings up the reason why I rarely watch television and movies anymore.

When I was a young punk, no Progressive type would have been caught dead being seen to like any part of mainstream media culture, particularly anything as 'popular' (said through gritted teeth) and 'lamestream' as music, television and movies. A movie like 'Top Gun' or 'Pretty Woman' or 'Batman'? They're for Sheep man.

The movies they consistently-championed were ones that subverted mainstream values, or had a cynical take on things like class dynamics, traditional beauty, sexuality and power structures, so you get messages like:

"All rich, popular people are evil and deserve to die."



"Traditional marriages are abusive and women make superior partners."



"Gay people are morally-superior and have more honest love than straight people." (Also note this and previous example also involve inter-racial couples).



"Be a snarky, emotionally-reactive narcissist who believes they're superior to everyone."



"Society instantly breaks down in a crisis as people become self-interested rather than working together as communities to survive."



"Fat and ugly girls are beautiful to high value men."





"Traditional American Values are really a façade to hide the fact everyone is a violent, sexual deviant."





You get the idea.

Skip forward to now. These once-subversive ideas are now the mainstream, and, as such, Progressives love mainstream culture and will champion the sort of big-budget films and television shows they once would have sneered at.

There is no greater sign to me than the fact the broken, damaged people now control mainstream culture than the fact I can barely relate to anyone on television or in movies as a genuine human beings with notions of decency, honour, community and love. This has particularly risen since about 2008 or so.

Instead, there's a lot of snarky Joss Whedon characters; unrealistic Mary Sue power fantasies for women; dysfunctional families; and, particularly, characters with no moral compass, just constantly-shifting allegiances to whomever stands to benefit their desires at the time. The major network shows really push at the moment to sell this last idea. As such, the good guys are constantly flipping to side with the bad guys.

More and more, shows are clearly-revealing to me that the writers are deeply fucked-up people, to the degree I just don't watch much of it, except during the social obligations of dating. Even normal people I know are noticing how far away TV has gotten from their values, which I find interesting.

[Easy_C]

That said, yeah. I actually like the series because it espouses relatively conservative values (aside from the obvious Voldemort-Nazi comparison).

That said it's directly pointed out that Harry isn't particularly skilled or talented. Other characters even comment on that directly that he is fairly average overall.....he's an exceptionally good duelist and quidditch player, but terrible in a lot of other subjects. The thing that sets him apart is that he has much stronger character than a lot of other ones in the books, and the Weasleys see that in him and have enormous respect for him because of it.

Plus I'm fairly partial to the Weasleys. My in laws remind me a lot of the Weasleys (a similarly happy, large, low income family) and I have a similar relationship to them that Harry does, sans the saving everyone's lives part.

[Paracelsus]

(11-05-2015 05:33 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

^ It is amazing how many current fantasy stories have simply negative end-messages that are female in thinking.

Harry Potter - nothing special about him, no ambition, no wits, no discipline, but still defeats the biggest baddest magician just by luck and "love".

Contrast it with male fantasy authors who are not getting pushed by major forces like Raymond E Feist and his Midkemia books:



Pug/Milamber - a boy of modest heritage who only became the most powerful magician by being born extremely talented, highly ambitious, highly industrious and working his ass off. Essentially he is a Dumbledore or a positive Voldemort. That's what men respect - talent and skill combined.

As I read some of the Harry Potter books I was always hoping that the character would come alive and unleash his full potential. But no - he remained The Mediocre One to the very end. It also seems that the author invented this trick about the MOST POWERFUL STAFF as a final last straw of idiocy. So yeah - your bloody skill, talent, massive abilities mean jack-shit - all you had to have is the baddest magical weapon and "love and courage". Harry Potter is the biggest pusher of female mediocracy.

It occurred to me that there is a vein of this corrosive element present in the Star Wars prequel trilogy. In the OT, becoming a Jedi is implied as something almost anyone can do given sufficient time and training. Not even in ROTJ is Luke meant to be the subject of any great prophecy anointing him as having special powers: the Force 'runs strong' in his family is as far as it goes. For the most part, Luke succeeds in his quest to become a Jedi through his own hard work, sweat, and failures.

Contrast that with the prequels: Force ability is just a midichlorian count, and Anakin Skywalker is tapped as The Chosen One from the moment he's born. He doesn't really seem to work that hard for any of his achievements, he doesn't listen, and whines about being apprenticed to Obi-Wan, the closest thing he has to a father. And the most frustrating part is that when Anakin falls, he doesn't succumb to the Dark Side out of a deliberate, willed choice for personal aggrandisement which would make him a really compelling character -- he does it solely out of oneitis which is heavily implied as a sort of Oedipal Complex. I can appreciate tragedy, but there is something unwilled about Anakin's actions, a sense that he just reacts to shit in his life and doesn't try to solve his problems proactively. This was a stupid choice because we were meant to cheer for this guy and then scream in grief when he chose to go bad. We look at Anakin Skywalker throughout the PT and go "What a fucking dweeb". Anakin is pushed and pulled by the pussy. There's no tragedy in his life because he never made conscious choices and never worked for any of his achievements.

[loremipsum]

Does anyone even take TRP subreddit seriously anymore?
Here's a recent thread called "The number of cucks on polyamory sub is mind blowing".
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comm...b_is_mind/

Seems alright until you read some of the upvoted comments

Quote:

I have never explicitly gone down the poly road but way back in the day I had an LTR who fantasized about a "6-some" (one guy in each hole and one guy in each hand). It never happened but the idea of it didn't offend me and didn't seem like it was a matter of being cucked. We had a dom-sub dynamic so it was more like I would be pimping her out (6 points)

Quote:

To be a cuckold you have to get off on your SO fucking other people. Them/you merely fucking other people is not cuckolding. Letting them fuck other people so you can also fuck other people is not cuckolding. (27 points)

Quote:

Lol man having certain kinks makes you crazy. If you get off on somebody shitting down your throat, there's something wrong with you. If you get off on your wife riding other dicks, there's something wrong with you. Sadly this is beyond the cuckold's control, he was mentally ill from the start in order to have such a bizarre fetish. (-4 minus points)

Quote:

These men are mentally sick.
"Someone does something I don't like? Mental illness!"
Not even the most beta of betas would be ok with this garbage.
Oh yea cuz only someone lower than a beta would want 2 girlfriends. Or a girl friend and a boyfriend (4 points)

Seems more like it's a stepping stone for angry people nowadays filled with trash.