Messages

As far as I know, the only people present in general cases are: one doctor, a few nurses and the woman's partner. Some overworked nurses and doctors can kick the partner out for no reason and carry out the proceedings with a lot of haste or apathy.
This seems to have a lot to do with an overflow of patients and/or understaffed doctors having to deal with childbirths and other types of proceedings at the same time.

Over here the main occurences seem to be verbal abuse (insulting the woman who's giving birth, telling them to "keep it down" while they're agonizing, etc), poor handling of the actual proceedings (inadvertently hurting the woman, being poorly trained on how to deal with her and her pain), and last but not least, coercing women into having C-sections.

the problem of doctors mistreating women who are giving birth is real and serious and needs to be discussed. it's not a new thing, let alone an sjw craze.

but the term "birthrape" is stupid and clearly designed to attract sjw ire. I've never heard of women being sexually abused in that situation, so the term misrepresents a very real problem (uncaring doctors who mistreat the women, hurt them, force them to go through a caesarean, prohibit their partners from being present for no reason, etc). now we're gonna see a lot of posers angrily ranting about it for their own popularity.

and I agree with rtil, it's probably very insulting to some.

I really liked Boyhood. In my opinion, it is better than Grand Budapest Hotel (which was very fun) and The Theory of Everything (which was alright). Don't know if I'd pick it over Whiplash, and I haven't seen the other ones yet.

never done anything like that before and I have no idea if he'll read it, but by all means, write it and send it. I mean, if it's something you really wanna do, what would be the advantage of waiting for him to live to be 87?

and my lurking

awesome artwork!

I liked Swampstepper a lot, and the callback to an older song of yours (forgot its name - couldn't find it on your soundcloud) was nice too!
Hey Listen was also cool. I'd buy this if I saw it at a record store too

I should DEFINITELY have taken a "leap year" after finishing high school. Take the time to figure out what I wanted to do, get a shitty retail job or something, invest in my own projects, and really find out what course to take in college - or if I even should go to college at all. Rather than just haphazardly leaping straight into a very expensive course.

This would have helped me immensely, but now I'm just kinda fumbling through a lot of things, and I feel like that sentiment is only gonna die down once I start supporting myself 100%, which might take a while.

As for being more passionate about my art at an early age - shit, that's a problem for everyone, especially when you read your favorite musician / filmmaker's interviews and they're talking about how they were doing their stuff at age 12 already.

honestly, I enjoyed every game of theirs that I've played / watched (sam and max, monkey island, walking dead, wolf among us)
so as weird (and unappealing) as the idea sounds, I'd definitely give it a shot

[spoiler][/spoiler]

I will never say who helped me.

that's a complex clue I see
what you posted is an image of a can of condensed soup. I'll have to discard the obvious red herring that suggests that soup might be behind all of this - you made a smart enough move that most people will refuse to think of any other possibility, but you can't fool me.
so, if it's not about the soup, what is it about? there are numerous symbols and clues throughout the can, but only one of them holds the key to solving this mystery; for together they are disjointed. "Campbell's"; the "paris exposition 1900" symbol; the multiple saints fleur logos from the "saints row" series of videogames; even the red/white/gold color scheme might be a hint of the shit person's identity.
but I will choose a different route...

I noticed in my research that there is a band called CAN which features in the soundtrack of a recent PT Anderson movie.
who here is an unbridled cinephile who also loves anime, pizza and general slutiness just enough to be a member of TBA?
further research showed me that this band, CAN, has only one album which features an actual can in its artwork. clever, ExBerian. very clever.
it is an album called 'ege bamyasi'.

crackers, I figured this one out for you, no need to thank me. now fuck that guy up.

it looks good! the little zoom-in is a nice touch. are you storyboarding for this?

also, why wouldn't people watch it based on the plot? most synopses for web animations are so vague that anyone can get away with anything. :b

[T I M E S T A M P S !!!]

[spoiler]ABSURD  T I M E S T A M P S !!![/spoiler]

sorry if anyone here has heart problems!

she's trying to appear completely comfortable in her sexuality and then she's sending rape threats. someone send this over to freudz boyz

idiots on bandwagons. they've no idea what "st louis" is or don't even care

this train of thought can't possibly have started back in ferguson. it started when she saw everybody leaving similar messages and decided to be cool as well

"let's fight that racist, jewish cunt......"

I like the art style you have for your next film & for your signature.

Also I like your avatar!

I don't think you screwed it up! I like the colors of the leaves and the clouds.

marxism does not advocate a dictatorship diretly at all, nor does it espouse the single party rule

that element was implemented by lenin, as 'the transitional period' hence the term 'marxism-leninism'

This transitional period was mentioned by Marx - he said that between Capitalism and Communism, there can be only a transitional period called the Revolutionary Dictatorship of the Proletariate.
I never said that marxism advocates a dictatorship as refers to a single centralized party ruling despotically. I was referring to the dictatorship of the proletariat, a slightly different beast - I guess you can think of it as a "legit" dictatorship depending on the angle. There's a certain consensus, though it is sometimes disputed, that Marx believed in a moderate path to seizing the means of production and destroying the bourgeoisie, while Engels believed in a more violent approach; but to me it seems like they both could get pretty radical, since in the Communist Manifesto they conjointly tell of the need for the Communists (as the most advanced members of the proletariat) to overthrow the bourgeoisie and seize the means of production and ensure that their victory would not be "supressed".

If this was about the Khmer Rouge example, that was just me describing something Marx would never have agreed with (as far as I can guess).

i fail to perceive in what way marx deconstructed our society at all, neither from economic nor social standpoint

marxian economics are virtually pseudo science and most of it doesnt hold water, for instance his theory of value which argues that the value of a good stems solely from the exploitation of workers which makes no sense  both from an economic standpoint AND psychologic

Regardless of whether we agree or not with some of what he wrote, the concepts he put out were still revolutionary, and he was trying precisely to deconstruct our society and its economic models (and, thus, social models, since those - at least in his view - can't truly be separated).
He developed the concepts of surplus value and surplus labour; base and superstructure; some of what he wrote about the capitalist mode of production, the accumulation of capital and historical materialism is basic high-school repertoire today; the very concept of class struggle as the moving force of society's changes stems from his work; the list of ideas goes on. Every major philosophy / history / sociology class I've taken has mentioned and given importance to those concepts, and this coupled with my own perception of these concepts as being mostly accurate leads me to think that they indeed had success in deconstructing the socio-economical models of those times in many ways.

As for the law of value, I'm not familiar with that subject at all, and doing a quick google search on it makes it seem too complex for me to grasp it readily, so I'll take your word for it. I wouldn't cast away his economic thinkings as "not holding water" though. Many of his concepts are extremely controversial and relevant to this day.

marx is vehemently attacking entrepreneurs as rapacious and oppressing the working class. isnt that biased? its as if everybody who had money became deprived of compassion and human feelings whatsoever, like the world was ruled by sociopaths? on the other hand we get the romanticist image of the manual worker, as if that was applicable to everyone..

now tell me the difference between these two views presented here

in a way there are no discrepancies, theyre both biased and overlook many factors

but at least the former makes people exert themselves AND extract creativity and logical thinking of those who endure subjection to it

socialism makes you submit to one model, scheme on the other hand

I understand your point about this animosity from Marx to the bourgeois. While I think most of his more well-known concepts are, generally speaking, true to reality, it does bother me that he spends much of his work dealing with these vague, exploitative, capitalist figures. But that is but a distraction from the point he's trying to make, and it is because he had a point to make that he wrote the way he did.
I don't think that diminishes his analyses of the workings of the economic model, but I do agree it can begin to feel like kind of a caricature. However, this atmosphere of generalization + animosity permeates the vast majority of academic texts I've ever read - the author talks about whole systems of living and tries to make himself sound factual but ends up attacking those who he mentions. It's a curse of writing about social themes - you can't afford to always be super specific, and it just starts to feel like you're attacking other people.

NOW lets talk about marx's personality

lets not demonise marx, he was just a man, but from what i can see, he himself was full of resentment and envy. ironically, privately, marx was a complete recluse. despite being such a vociferous advocate of the workers cause he didnt interact with the working class at all.

This extreme political passion is a feature I don't know whether to strongly dislike or respect and give place to. I don't agree he was as bad as you say he was, although I understand your reluctance at accepting his apparent portrayal of those in the upper middle class and up. I know, in my circles, examples of people who espouse marxism thinking and find themselves in a position of being envied, not of envying; some of them are extreme, some aren't. I don't think you can say his attitude in writing is so evident of his personality, but to me what really matters is that the basic question of whether marxist theory can be seen as being based on "moral principles" is still a yes - I do generally find empathy in, and with, his constant defense of the working class.
The fact that he was such an isolationist, in that sense, is to me counterposed by his sheer effort and his many years living on the edge of poverty, on Engel's donations, while reading and writing all day. I don't mean to be romantic, I mean this as a counterpoint and not something conclusive of his being a "good guy". If anything, this thread has reminded me of how hard it is to judge a character that's always been judged for us, while we were being taught about him for all of our lives.

it's not as simple as that.
there is controversy as to whether it was truly marx who called for the extermination of lesser peoples and if anybody did so at all
http://communism-explained.blogspot.com.br/2010/05/did-marx-call-for-extermination-of.html

if you think there is something immoral about marxist social-economical theories then you should attack them directly.

my one and only qualm with marxist theory is that it is extremely naïve in thinking that a dictatorship can be forward-thinking and willingly give away its power once its goals (capitalism ~> socialism ~> communism) are complete.
that naiveté has led to many bloodbaths that I personally don't think he would have agreed with at all. he strikes me as a defender of the proletariat, which were massacred along with people from all other classes in china, cambodia, etc... It wouldn't fit.
But I'm just guessing, as is anyone.

basically his proposition of communism has one big hole in it that lets crazy evil fucknuts get away with stuff that other people of their kind typically had a much harder time getting away with.
but even if you factor in that we don't know what Marx's feelings would be on, say, the Khmer Rouge rule, if we rationalize the subject completely, they had almost nothing to do with economy, only with continuous centralization of power. and thus it doesn't even fundamentally concern Marx and his theories.

while I cannot ignore what I perceive as a fatal, and absurdly dangerous, flaw in his theories that has led millions to die, Marx is still someone I admire in some ways for his brilliant deconstruction of modern society and his angles on the history of humanity and on our economical processes.

Besides, we should always be wary of placing ANY thinker, especially the great ones, under a label of "good" or "bad". We almost never actually, you know, read their books - debating them over and over again based on annotated reads, dissections by third parties, and so on. And if we did read their books, we'd always find great thoughts we could, at the very least, respect, and some bullshit you absolutely disagree with on certain parts.

so no, not a piece of shit at all

What did you hear? I was going to see Kaguya but but then I realized it was dubbed. I'm just going to wait until our little festival happens toward the end of the month because they usually get stuff subbed. I've been looking forward to this movie for years though. Isao Takahata I think is better than late Miyazaki at capturing the understated magical realism that made their early stuff so special.

I read a review that basically said Iñárritu is a huge jerkoff and his only really good movie is Amores Perros and that the rest is just annoyingly pretentious / grandiose.
Here it is: http://thedissolve.com/reviews/1152-birdman/

I usually don't consider "pretentious" to be a bad quality for a director but I have to say 21 Grams and Babel really disappointed me. This means that, while I can't say if I agree with the reviewer on all points, the parallels he drew between Birdman and films that I really dislike made me uneasy about going to see the former.

About Kaguya: I couldn't wait for the subbed version because I had only 'til Sunday in the U.S. before heading back home. It honestly didn't bother me too much, save for what seemed to my ears as an awful compression / autotune thing going on in Kaguya's voice as she sung a recurring song that contains extremely high, but soft, notes.
Anyway, here's me hyping you up, the film looks beautiful, Takahata is awesome, etc.

Now that I'm home I wish I could watch Nightcrawler right away but I don't know when it's gonna premiere. We've been taking our sweet time distributing this year's releases. I only got to watch Boyhood a week ago. (liked it more than most people I know, it was really touching imo)

heard shitty things about birdman but intend to watch it anyway

maybe this isn't super-mainstream but it's not underground anyway - have you guys seen the tale of princess kaguya? i loved it (:

so did you guys have fun?