Sorry to Bother You is a movie that doesn't receive enough praise on here

George's Dilemma

Banned
Supporter
Joined
May 27, 2012
Messages
27,794
Reputation
7,443
Daps
136,122
Movie wasn't that remarkable. I didn't hate it, but it didn't blow me away like I anticipated it doing. I did appreciate how it came off like an old school B movie though from the 80s.
 

DPresidential

The Coli's Ralph Ellison
Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
25,447
Reputation
13,615
Daps
103,422
Reppin
Old Brooklyn
I've said this before, regarding how we are supposed to feel about the movie's viewpoint on capitalism but, the most ironic shyt was shown in how Boots Riley, the director, portrayed Steve Lift's "work to live" program.

Apparently, if you join the program:
  1. You have a living wage
  2. Your essentials - food, water, shelter, are provided to you.
  3. You can't choose your job, you have to work where the overall company needs you to work.
  4. The program literally forces limited decision making on the individual and has a focus on "working as a worker ant to benefit the greater good of the whole"
No troll, no spite, no pettiness. I'm willing to debate this, respectfully...

Those characteristics sound like the communist pipedream...not the capitalist one.

Can someone explain how worryfree's set up sounds more like capitalism than communism??
 

HellRell804

Banned
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
4,327
Reputation
2,745
Daps
22,904
Reppin
NULL
look here in the greatest country on earth we don't have time to consider the thoughts and livelihood of "poor people"

take that commie shyt somewhere else.

I just got one question for you, do you think by any chance, that some people are poor due to decisions that they make. Like I'm serious, does the person who spends 30 bucks a day in lottery tickets, or the person who drinks a handle of liquor everyday get the same level of compassion as people who truly get screwed over by the system due to lack of economic opportunities and lack of a network of successful contacts and access to resources?

I ask because you always use defending "poor people" as the motivation for your beliefs but you never make the distinction.

In reality only one of those groups can be helped without severely limiting their freedom to live life as they choose. And throwing money at the others is basically like throwing money down a sinkhole and will only make the people who take advantage of them richer much faster.
 

Ya' Cousin Cleon

OG COUCH CORNER HUSTLA
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
24,285
Reputation
-1,545
Daps
82,039
Reppin
Harvey World to Dallas, TX
a number of poor people use what little money they have on frivolous investments (lottery which in itself is a huge problem because it can be used as way to avoid tax increases and defunding programs) or cope with the day to to day stress of being a working poor person in American does not in the slightest sway my view point on the current economic system, nor do I believe that it's the common cold for everyday inconsistencies or problems a person may have, when itself thrives off of malfunction and disorder.

it should never be about who's more deserving than the other in regards to poor and working people. that's a neoliberal outlook to have in regards to income inequality

and it's not about throwing money at the problem, that's the UBI/Reparations trap that essentially allows the state to wipe it's hands off of any wrong doing or further predatory practices, it's about allocate and establishing networks for resources and opening access to get people on the up and up.

and what you consider "reality" is based on your own limited viewpoint on the possibility of better.

but "we" rather protect and continue to coddle the wealthy


I just got one question for you, do you think by any chance, that some people are poor due to decisions that they make. Like I'm serious, does the person who spends 30 bucks a day in lottery tickets, or the person who drinks a handle of liquor everyday get the same level of compassion as people who truly get screwed over by the system due to lack of economic opportunities and lack of a network of successful contacts and access to resources?

I ask because you always use defending "poor people" as the motivation for your beliefs but you never make the distinction.

In reality only one of those groups can be helped without severely limiting their freedom to live life as they choose. And throwing money at the others is basically like throwing money down a sinkhole and will only make the people who take advantage of them richer much faster.
 
Top