this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
2575 points (97.0% liked)

Don’t You Know Who I Am?

3809 readers
1 users here now

Posts of people not realising the person they’re talking to, is the person they’re talking about.

Acceptable examples include:

Discussions on any topic are encouraged but arguements are not welcome in this community. Participate in good faith - don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguments sake.

The posts here are not original content, the poster is not OP and doesn’t necessarily agree with or condone the views in the post. The poster is not looking to argue with you about the content in the post.

Rules:

This community follows the rules of the lemmy.world instance and the lemmy.org code of conduct. I’ve summarised them here:

  1. Be civil, remember the human.
  2. No insulting or harassing other members. That includes name calling.
  3. Censor any identifying info of private individuals in the posts. This includes surnames and social media handles.
  4. Respect differences of opinion. Civil discussion/debate is fine, arguing is not. Criticise ideas, not people.
  5. Keep unrequested/unstructured critique to a minimum. If you wish to discuss how this community is run please comment on the stickied post so all meta conversations are in one place.
  6. Remember we have all chosen to be here voluntarily. Respect the spent time and effort people have spent creating posts in order to share something they find amusing with you.
  7. Swearing in general is fine, swearing to insult another commenter isn’t.
  8. No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia or any other type of bigotry.
  9. No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.

Please report comments that break site or community rules to the mods. If you break the rules you’ll receive one warning before being banned from this community.

PLEASE READ LEMMY.ORG’S CITIZEN CODE OF CONDUCT: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html

PLEASE READ LEMMY.WORLD’S CODE OF CONDUCT: https://lemmy.world/legal

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2ez@lemmy.world 101 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Some fragile male egos in this thread. Looking forward to your complaints about the Barbie movie. Sad and pathetic.

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 57 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't know what you're talking about. For me the fragile egos are way down the thread, all massively downvoted. The absolute majority is supportive.

[–] letsgocrazy@lemm.ee 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People are addicted to rage.

A few arseholes on twitter saying negative things sets a chain reaction of rage to all those who are addicted to their own emotions.

The mature thing to do in all cases is to let it go.

It's also worth noting that the original comments could be aimed at the fact she is a model, and not because she is a woman.

#zoolander

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] letsgocrazy@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Are you kidding? I just told you!

[–] orphiebaby@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Not everybody's sorting by Top, friend. They're probably down there where you say they are though.

[–] teamevil@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

My comment on the Barbie movie ..Kens belt buckle looks like a liny Metallica logo...horses are rad and Alan is terrible.

[–] Shikadi@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 year ago

Alan was literally MVP wtf

[–] weirdwallace75@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Why would anyone care about an hour-long toy commercial?

[–] Ticktok@lemmy.one 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because that's not what the movie is at all. It actually spends a fair amount of time mocking consumerism and hating on the negative impact barbie has had on women's self image and feminism. It's actually pretty crass with a lot of offcolor jokes. It's more targeted to adults who had Barbies as kids during on the 80s/90s.

[–] funkless@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I did the Barbenheimer double bill. The one that felt like a.commercial was the "YU ESS EH" nature of promoting American War interests.

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Barbenheimer

I love this.

[–] tiredOfFascists@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oppenheimer forces the viewer to strongly consider the awful thing that was done those two days.

I'm as critical of the US as anyone I've met but your take is bizarrely ignorant to what they were trying to do. I feel like you'd have to be intentionally missing the point to come away thinking that movie was pro-america in any way.

[–] funkless@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I recognize that both movies (Barbie and Oppenheimer) have some self-depreciating self-criticism of their own meta-apparatus. Oppenheimer's story - if we keep the narrow focus to just JRO - is a story about a scientist who gains political power through the usefulness of his theories only to lose that political power due to political influences and return being "merely" a scientist with his own tropical getaway, publishing deals, tenure at a university, worldwide fame and recognition and a host of baubles and awards from across the globe, including the USA just 9 years later.

I think it does read pro-USA, especially to this foreigner who lives and works in the USA. It does not cover the political and medical implications of the New Mexico testing grounds, it does not cover the impact on Japanese civilians from the war (indeed the only victim we see is imaginary in Oppenheimer's mind). It's not a particularly interesting story, and its characters barely suffer (in comparison to the suffering they caused).

I'd argue that it's propaganda to make it seem like bombing civilian targets in Japan was necessary, worthwhile and agonized over by heroic people. Which you may believe is true, but doesn't stop the movie from being pro-USA. I'd even argue it's depiction of McCarthy-ism is self-serving as it seems to suggest, subjectively to me at least, that "look at how far we've come."

[–] tiredOfFascists@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

It sounds like you have a lot of biases and you did not or would not put them aside to try to view the movie objectively.

some self-depreciating self-criticism

Sounds like you think Oppenheimer was a movie that essentially said "teehee- isn't it fun that the US killed thousands of people and that was bad?! wink [Blasts pop music at a dance party]"

I think it does read pro-USA

Interesting, my take is that it was very careful to highlight the nuances surrounding what it means to race to have a WMD. At not one point did I think the film presented anything about this topic as easy to think about. The axis was cast in an extremely fair bad light, and those who sought to remove Oppenheimer's political power were never shown as justified. I hated every single one of them at every moment, because they were shown in the film to power hungry assholes with zero regard for limiting human suffering in the future. O was trying to limit that suffering.

How on earth did you fail to understand the basic arc of this story? The protagonist and antagonist could not have been more clearly defined.

The film also goes to some lengths to show the US in a bad light. Just by telling O's story -- and that he regretted the thing he had helped create -- it was a given that the US was not justified in dropping those bombs. That was not changed by having a couple of characters on screen justifying it -- that was just telling the story the way it fuckin happened. The only way to tell this as pro-USA would be to exclude the internal struggle O went through. The film literally was 95% about was that struggle.

its characters barely suffer

We must not have watched the same movie. wtf

It’s not a particularly interesting story

The box office records that were set kind of go against this VERY personal opinion which, included here, weakens your credibility. You went to see a movie you thought was about a boring topic and walked away thinking that still. How a person have think it's a boring topic, I've no idea, but that's you.

it does not cover the impact on Japanese civilians from the war

Sure, you could argue that the Japanese suffering was glossed over a bit, but on the other hand, Nolan treats his viewers like adults. He assumes that if you see this movie, you're aware of the historical significance of its story. I have seen the Japanese suffering covered elsewhere a dozen times so I didn't find it an alarming exclusion. The depth of suffering caused by an atomic blast is a 10 hour documentary series in and of itself, so it made sense to me that we could be trusted to already know what that is, to the extent anyone can know what it is who didn't experience it firsthand.

I’d argue that it’s propaganda to make it seem like bombing civilian targets in Japan was necessary, worthwhile and agonized over by heroic people.

I'd argue that it treats you like an adult and lets you come to your own conclusion -- and the only humane one -- that murdering thousands of people in an instant is morally disgusting. The main takeaway from the film for me: politicians do fucked shit while scientists typically try to do the opposite. Nothing has changed about that, and it was an excellent and thought-provoking movie about that and possibly the most horrible/important invention in the history of humans.

[–] weirdwallace75@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Of course it's a toy commercial.

[–] Shikadi@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 year ago

It was a really fricken good movie, way to be closed minded and talk shit about something you didn't watch

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They said the same thing about the LEGO movie and how wrong they were...

[–] weirdwallace75@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The LEGO Movie is a long advertisement, too.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The LEGO movie is a work of art... and yes, to some extent an advertisement of the brand.