one thing i am against open door policy for inferior races
-
elipdx — 11 years ago(February 28, 2015 11:35 PM)
Interesting. I saw this film the day Leonard Nimoy died. I will counter your sad commentary with one the character Spock said as he selflessly gave his life. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one."
This thread started with an ill thought, ideological, and sad one liner, and devolved into some commentators legitimizing apartheid and Hitler's Nazism. All to present themselves as "superior" to "others", and advocate for their chosen political party.
It is precisely this "us against them" attitude that propagates the premise of this and countless other films, let alone countless failed human societies. And on those grounds alone, Elysium effectively made it's point quite clear. -
glanemann — 11 years ago(March 20, 2015 11:40 AM)
Right. I was just sitting here watching this movie and it's flat out ridiculous that anyone would think this would actually happen. I'm sure the writers, Matt Damon and many others believe this is the kind of future we'd have with Capitalism. It's beep retarded to think that people would treat others like that.
From his evil bosses, evil corporate people, the rich keeping everything from the poor, robotic cops that illegally search you and beat you with sticks, and a robotic parole officer who doesn't give a beep about people and offers pills, med beds that can cure you of anything yet they won't let poor people use them, etc.
It's a leftist wet dream and they way of telling you that big government and wealth redistribution is how we need to live. Which is asinine to begin with. I fear a big government over Microsoft any day.
I guess the scary thing is that people actually believe this garbage. -
davidlau17 — 10 years ago(July 06, 2015 08:45 AM)
It's beep retarded to think that people would treat others like that.
Indeed. Everyone knows that all rich people also happen to be a faultless humanitarians. Nobody ever takes advantage of anyone else in this country. Nope. Well, except for those stinky, detestable poor people who want FREE healthcare without earning it.
Who are the people with the dangerous ideology again? -
johmil-18374 — 10 years ago(May 13, 2015 05:12 AM)
So a a repressive hierarchy structure is great, ofcource. Ridicolous post here by someone that taxes are like stealing, most money is just from rich families so the kids have done nothing to earn it. Secondly sick people should always get the best care regardless of class, every western country for example can afford that. And instead of thinking that society is stealing my money i would like to contribute and if i pay a lot of taxes because of high earning i certanly would be a important part of a functional society. Instead of just behaving like a angry dog with its bone..mine,mine.
-
joshvenus — 10 years ago(July 12, 2015 06:15 AM)
I find it upsetting that general society's thinking assumes that equality must equal socialism and even more upsetting that this then means we must debate "Left vs Right". I do believe the "Right" is selfish but I also believe the "Left" is naive; neither is correct/true, both are arrogant. Once you pick a side and reject the other, you cannot be correct - science has only been so successful at presenting the truth as it has gradually been becoming empirical and motivated only by finding the truth, rather than worrying about whether that truth is "good" or "bad" - you must always consider al sides. (Though there are many examples of science which is motivated by assumed beliefs, but that is a debate for another thread).
Understandably people believe that all changes to societal structure must come from the top down; most if not all revolutionary changes we have seen previously have happened this way. The revolutionaries usually take power and then enforce their ideals on those they have power over: Napoleon, Lenin, Castro and so on. I'm not going to get into whether this is a "good" or "bad" thing (good/bad is too subjective to have a rational opinion on). This is simply a truth.
Forced redistribution, as discussed earlier in this thread, certainly has hurt many and we have great examples of how this is negative to some if not all (Stalin, Mau). But no currently existing society / political system is free of forced redistribution; legal ownership is forced redistribution. Sounds crazy but if you look at things logically legal ownership is simply redistributing "property" from the world at large (human or otherwise) to an individual entity, enforced by legality (upheld by judicial systems). Hence, it is (en)forced (re)distribution. The only "good" (I apologise for using this term) distribution is none at all.
I have never read Marx myself but I am led to believe that his utopian communist society follows this principle of no legal ownership / no such thing as property. His arguments on how we achieve this may or may not be flawed but how can we argue the goal is not noble? Yet we do, and most of the "Right" will froth at the mouth to tell you how it is not practical, without admitting that it is noble. This is a prime example of why it IS inherently selfish to be rightist.
But if we really believe that we want all in the world to be healthy and free to enjoy what this world has to offer (I do, and I hope you do also, deep down) then the medium for how we achieve this is a separate argument. While I identify more with socialists than capitalists, it is the goal that is important, not the means.
The question I pose to the classic "Right-wing" is: If we could live in a completely anarchist society (no government, no inherent power of legal enforcement) and people, by their own disposition, do not hurt one another, only endeavour to help one another, and, though it may seems a fantastical idea, this allowed everyone to be healthy and happy - would you still reject this kind of world?
My honest opinion is that if we all rejected political / philosophical tribalism then we would be much closer to reaching our utopia. I am from the UK so we also have the painful and meaningless Red/Blue (Labour/Conservative) conundrum that plagues any real answers being found to creating utopia. .
I challenge all conservatives / rightists / communists / leftists etc who read this to tell me why I am wrong and why their beliefs are actually the most "moral" (another good/bad analogy I resent having to use, blame the limitations of my vocabulary) and the most selfless. Because I am confident in my beliefs that I am correct and though I do not have the answers, my opinions as displayed here are one of the better examples of how we might find these answers.
Otherwise, just admit you are selfish, greedy and arrogant and stop arguing with each other when you may as well be killing each other. When the dust settles it will be the people like myself ("anarchists") that remain to build a better world - if it isn't a nuclear wasteland by then - so just bloody get on with it.
TL;DR to respond to the OP, how can they be wanting it for "free" / can that be a negative thing, when everything is fundamentally free anyway? You are born naked with no property so you have no more of a fundamental right to it than "they" do. -
Ratchapakinai — 10 years ago(July 30, 2015 09:41 PM)
FYI dip beep - it's a movie. For those of us who aren't moronic Americans who think there is a political agenda behind everything and/or everything presented to us is racist is some way, it is a really good film. Try watching the film without being a moron - you just might enjoy it.
-
dwallfilm — 10 years ago(September 18, 2015 10:29 AM)
Not a rush fan just watch what is happening.
Libs are gone and replaced by globalist progressives. Not sure who Republicans are today, we will know in a couple years.
Progs are telling school kids that govt creates jibs-not. They cost 2 private industry jobs.
Blomfeld just made a movie about his view of South africa. Picked anti-USA Damon and Foster to star,,, surprise. Turned both off, will miss Damon's acting but adios Bourne.
Cubalmao. the entire world, except USA, supported Cuba and the commies still chose poverty to stay in control. Obama just chose to make Castro more wealthy.
All that works is lightly regulated capitalism, the world is finally getting it, just have to move past obama and his billionaire friends. Gonna be great seeing all those free market jobs created. -
dwallfilm — 10 years ago(September 18, 2015 10:33 AM)
Do want to see Bay's Benghazi film, if he is truthful. If not it will be a joke. Want to see what delayed the heavily armed local convoy that arrived two hours late. If Bay did not cover the convoy will be a waste or if he is a fluffer for clintons.
-
gtbarker — 10 years ago(September 25, 2015 09:13 AM)
Hey, if you feel guilty about being selfish don't blame it on others - that's the right wing way I know, but please keep it in your trousers, no one wants to see it.
'Well I've got two words for you - STFU' -
Sean_Haze — 10 years ago(October 02, 2015 11:36 PM)
I'm honestly amazed that even though the Med-Bays don't seem to consume any finite resources, just power, that people would still complain about the unwashed masses getting access to it.
"Those children should stay crippled, because they didn't EARN the right to lie on this bed for 30 seconds while all of their injuries are instantly healed! Stop taking it away from the poor rich people who didn't actually lose ANYTHING in the process." -
fictionalman — 10 years ago(October 04, 2015 02:47 PM)
The liberal agenda behind this movie was about as subtle as a dinosaur.The poor oppressed were mostly Hispanics.I have a radical suggestion for the left ,instead of bringing the United States quality of life down to the level of Mexico why don't we reform Mexico's government and bring their standard of the living up to the equal to the United States? Why not do that with other countries?
That's just my two cents. -
lianzantoro — 10 years ago(October 04, 2015 09:14 PM)
I actually kind of liked this movie. It's was entertaining and never boring. But I got to agree it was less than subtle. My thoughts on the "happy ending" were, how long before Elysium was ravaged like the earth?
Yeah. Liberals really are a repulsive and foolish lot. -
Tinmancr — 9 years ago(October 27, 2016 01:03 PM)
yes it is but "ALL" modern scifi does this left wing total nonsense star trek started this back in the 60s.
why wouldnt you want to work so you can pay for everyone else?
not quite as ridiculous as blatant illegals in machete saving the us from the whiteies.. -
maximillianheck — 9 years ago(December 23, 2016 08:30 AM)
So.. Basically you're a white boy that never experienced Jim Crow America or Apartheid South Africa. Thanks for letting us know in such spectacular fashion.
Look into where the director / writer grew up. I'm sure you would have succeeded and become rich working your ass off there even if you weren't in the upper class. It's not as if they set things up that way.
