Anon Babble

clussy dies tonight

dumb dingo kys

This is the thread.

QOTD

A hopeless incel close to roping gets a cute gf out of nowhere (Cailee Spaeny probably) and spends the film wondering if its a prank or a setup or she's trying to scam him. It becomes a cat and mouse game of trying to find her ulterior motive, i've pretty much written the screenplay. Won't spoil the ending.

Why didn't you wait until bump limit? Now we got split threads.

Sorry but I can't take 16mm films seriously. Therefore I can't take your thread seriously. I'll chill in the other one and if it dies will ignore Anon Babble until the next thread come along.

i'm not sure about the specifics but I would hire Albert Serra to "act" and instead get 100+ hours of footage of me sexually degrading him

But all jokes aside, what fuck was his problem?

gay

Forgot the pic.

You're not providing any examples of situations of people holding beliefs

you're such an empiricist lmao

Beliefs about the natural world and religious beliefs, for example, are beneficial precisely because they refer or are taken to refer to something beyond personal whim.

they're beneficial because they're useful to the individual in spiritual and material terms

My position isn't that all beliefs are explicitly justified by those who hold them

my point is people don't believe things just because they're true

Can you give an example of a belief held because it is taken to be beneficial in spite of being held by the holder to be false?

god??? most creation myths???

From the point of view of sincere communication

well i don't believe you think every single belief needs to be true to have value to a person anyway, so you're not sincere

Is that the beloved and acclaimed French actress Dominique Labourier (b. 1943)?

YES!

you're such an empiricist lmao

If not accepting bald assertions that contradict my intuitions makes me an empiricist, then sure.

they're beneficial because they're useful to the individual in spiritual and material terms

I can't see how those terms aren't inseparable from them being held to be true.

my point is people don't believe things just because they're true

I agree (I already mentioned that I don't take erroneous or unreflective beliefs to be in contradiction to what I'm saying). My point is that no belief will survive being convicted of falsity in the holder's eyes. That's kind of a big deal when it comes to argument, in my opinion.

god??? most creation myths???

Are you serious? Those beliefs are (at the very least typically) held to be true by their holders. How do you explain a crisis of faith (i.e. struggling to maintain a belief in God in the face of experiences taken to be at odds with that belief?) on your model?

well i don't believe you think every single belief needs to be true to have value to a person anyway

No, I don't think that every single belief a person has needs to be true to be of value to a person, but I do think that those beliefs need to be believed to be true by the believers both as a matter of definition and psychologically (I can't see how a belief in God that amounts to a mere whim can provide anything to a person at all let alone a benefit).

Somebody post the "girl inside" quote

Disgusting, busted, obnoxious whore (1943 - 2025).

If not accepting bald assertions that contradict my intuitions makes me an empiricist, then sure.

nigga if you believe things intuitively then why are you going on about truth and reason to begin with

how those terms aren't inseparable from them being held to be true.

someone might believe heroin is good for them, that doesn't mean that's true

My point is that no belief will survive being convicted of falsity in the holder's eyes.

if one of my beliefs is false but i believe that belief is good for me, i'll keep that belief. if a belief is true but i believe it to be harmful for me, i won't accept that belief.

Those beliefs are (at the very least typically) held to be true by their holders.

lmao you're incredibly naiive. most muslims are very open that the only reason they believe in islam is because the belief system is useful to them so it must be of divine origin.

How do you explain a crisis of faith

a struggle between two conflicting beliefs. believing that god doesn't exist because he's not very moral suggests that you never really believed in god to begin with, at least not over being a "good person"

I do think that those beliefs need to be believed to be true by the believers both as a matter of definition and psychologically

that's because you're an empiricist.

I can't see how a belief in God that amounts to a mere whim can provide anything to a person at all

because it underpins the entire belief system and creates cohesion within a society

Which one of you based anons made a webm of this? She cute.

nigga if you believe things intuitively then why are you going on about truth and reason to begin with

Because I don't take them to be incorrigible or unrefinable. They're merely a starting point (I implied as much earlier with my point about induction).

someone might believe heroin is good for them, that doesn't mean that's true

I know, have said so already, and explained that that's not a problem for what I'm saying.

if one of my beliefs is false but i believe that belief is good for me, i'll keep that belief. if a belief is true but i believe it to be harmful for me, i won't accept that belief.

So are you a doxastic voluntarist or are you just describing a process that goes on with you being unable to accept that a belief that you don't like is true / accepting of beliefs that you like?

the belief system is useful to them so it must be of divine origin

That's my point. The usefulness is not taken to be sufficient by the believers, but a proof of something beyond it. You can call religious believers self-servingly self-deceived and guilty of wishful thinking, but that is beside the point.

a struggle between two conflicting beliefs

Can't I just reject the principle of non-contradiction as not beneficial?

believing that god doesn't exist because he's not very moral suggests that you never really believed in god to begin with, at least not over being a "good person"

This is an oversimplification and an evasion that reduces crises of faith to grappling with the problem of evil. Even when dealing with that, believing that a particular God that is described as moral in a particular way doesn't exist because you take the condition of the world to be not what you'd expect is only one possible response (you can put God before being a "good person"). Never have I heard of a solution to a crisis of faith amounting to "I choose X because it's more comforting and nothing more".

that's because you're an empiricist

How? The core of my argument is a priori.

because it underpins the entire belief system and creates cohesion within a society

Again, I'm not denying that even false beliefs can be useful. The point is that the belief system would not bring about societal cohesion if it had no (real or imagined) reference to an intersubjective reality beyond it for the believer. The cohesion and stability are derivative to a large extent to the expectations of reward for good behaviour and punishment for bad on the part of believers. If you go into a religious society and start making people question whether or not there really is a God so described, some people are going to ignore you, some people are going to get hostile, but some are going to be changed and once they're sufficient in number, they will cause serious issues for that society's functioning.

Despite looking cheaper and more low-budget than Manor of Araucaima, it rocked. If you like films with a well-built atmosphere, or B-horror movies, go watch it.

almost 1 pm

havent watched any kino yet

i had an idea for a movie. It’s about a white house intern who gets roped into the plot to americanize the pope.

Few items i had sketched out;
He sees Trump as a mythical figure, Trump gets shark from Jaws treatment
He gets a hot gf who is catholic that eventually goes apeshit on him & ends up arrested/crazy
Lot of HD vance; basically story is about him stepping up to plate with the big boys that Vance runs

incorrigible

nigga???

So are you a doxastic voluntarist

there are some beliefs that i choose and other beliefs that i am forced to accept because of the beliefs that i choose

are you just describing a process that goes on with you being unable to accept that a belief that you don't like is true

if a belief that i don't like is rooted in a belief that i do hold then i am compelled to accept the belief that i don't like. i am not compelled to accept beliefs that i don't like that are not rooted in beliefs that i hold

The usefulness is not taken to be sufficient by the believers, but a proof of something beyond it.

well i misspoke. i meant they'll come up with a justification of divine origin but they really support it because they like it

Can't I just reject the principle of non-contradiction as not beneficial?

i don't have crisises of faith, i'm just describing it from the perspective of someone who does

Never have I heard of a solution to a crisis of faith amounting to "I choose X because it's more comforting and nothing more".

that is absolutely what happens every time

The core of my argument is a priori

ok if you're making arguments by basing them on objective truth, and not on beliefs unsupported by reason you personally hold, i would say that would be my definition of an empiricist.

The point is that the belief system would not bring about societal cohesion if it had no (real or imagined) reference to an intersubjective reality beyond it for the believer

i would say that some people yould see it as truth and others would see it as a noble lie

Time is a flat circle

/philm/ thought of the day - And GODard said: "let there be light", and there was light and it was good.

Good post

nigga???

My intuitions are responsive to reason to at least a certain extent and thus open to change.

there are some beliefs that i choose

What are some beliefs that you've chosen?

and other beliefs that i am forced to accept because of the beliefs that i choose

Do you accept the principle of non-contradiction, and if so, did you choose to accept it? If you accept it but didn't choose to accept it, what belief that that you chose does it follow from?

they'll come up with a justification of divine origin but they really support it because they like it

Right. So what do you make of people who, say, suppress or struggle to suppress certain powerful impulses (e.g. desire for fornication) in accordance with a religion in the absence of social pressure/fear of punishment?

that is absolutely what happens every time

Is it? What do you make of a person who derives immense comfort from his religion, but spurred to investigate its foundation somehow comes to find that he feels no reason to accept that it is true (and that there are reasons like anthropological and psychological arguments like the ones you're making that lead him to think that it's actually more actively dubious) and is pained by that but is nonetheless compelled to accept the conclusion?

my definition of an empiricist

Well, that's a pretty eccentric definition. Even then, as I said, my beliefs ultimately terminate in intuitions that while at least somewhat responsive to reason are not necessarily supported by it (they certainly antedate the reasons given in support of them even if I take them to draw further support from the arguments that I make).

i would say that some people yould see it as truth and others would see it as a noble lie

As would I, but a noble lie requires a core of genuine belief (even if that belief is that everyone else believes) and is thus vulnerable to a kind of "the Emperor has no clothes" scenario that I gestured to.

If you were given a $1 mil budget, a year and your choice of actors, what film would you make?

A Barbarella-Druuna type joint starring Bau.

*fear of non-divine punishment?

I love Rivette.
Your taste is mediocre.
No.
Not Dumontfag and you should die too you inbred mongrel.
Kys.
He was autistic about films but he made many kinos. Seemed like a chill guy.

What are some beliefs that you've chosen?

i am in favour of things that are good for me and others like me

If you accept it but didn't choose to accept it, what belief that that you chose does it follow from?

i am in favour of things that are good for me and others like me. non-contradiction is good for others like me, even if it is occasionally to my personal detriment

So what do you make of people who, say, suppress or struggle to suppress certain powerful impulses (e.g. desire for fornication) in accordance with a religion

i'd say they like the religion as a whole and so they follow the parts that they don't like out of respect to the religion

What do you make of a person who derives immense comfort from his religion, but spurred to investigate its foundation somehow comes to find that he feels no reason to accept that it is true

i'd call him someone who wasn't a true believer to begin with, if he lets other principles (such as truth or morality) override his belief

my beliefs ultimately terminate in intuitions that while at least somewhat responsive to reason are not necessarily supported by it

so you don't even believe that truth is necessary, so you have no point

a noble lie requires a core of genuine belief (even if that belief is that everyone else believes) and is thus vulnerable to a kind of "the Emperor has no clothes" scenario that I gestured to.

again, that would only affect some people, not everyone who supports that belief system. true belief is not necessary for a belief system to continue

Isn't this literal CP? Why is this allowed...

those were different times...

Why are you so angry

They should ban Nevermind by Nirvana as well, can't believe they'd promote unconsenting nudity like that

Alternate timeline where there's a national socialist uprising in the US during WW2 and the US allies with Germany in '39. Japan focuses its entire attention on Russia and China. Without lend lease from the US to Russia, Russia falls spectacularly to Germany. The US gives an ultimatum to the eternal anglos, join us or be invaded. The eternal anglo and his Jewish masters refuse peace. The US and Germany invade Great Britain, encountering little resistance. All jews and Churchill and shabbos goyim are all shipped to Madagascar. Madagascar is completely walled off and Jews have to deal with the locals and hunt/gather/farm their own food. Later this will be televised for entertainment/educational purposes. After GB joins NATSOC, total chink death occurs. Japan rape and pillage to their hearts extent while NATSOC takes over China for resources. The middle east is left alone, without Israel the land prospers. Africa is eventually colonized in mass. The world is now a utopia, a paradise.

Starring: No fucking idea because most hollywood actors are jews and trannies. Directed by John Boorman

total chink death occurs

There are too many nazi women with Asian husbands, the fantasy doesn’t even work.

So its legal if it was filmed a long time ago in a country that no longer exists? I'm just trying to understand the rules, for no particular reason.

QOD

I don't know but you can be sure there'd be lots of girls and guns in it.

Kino, can i be in it? I'll play the lead guy.

I won't even dare ask how you feel about super8 then.

Holy kino. Can i be in it too?

Hello american friend.

i am in favour of things that are good for me and others like me

Could you provide some examples? Do you struggle with the problem of error to the at least limited extent that some things that you believe to be good for you and those like you are only apparently so, by your own lights?

others like me

What constitutes a sufficient likeness between you and another? Does a similar problem of error to the first ever arise in the determination of who is sufficiently like you? Does your personal good ever conflict with the good of people that you deem to be like you and if so, how do you respond?

they follow the parts that they don't like out of respect to the religion

So what would you make of the hypothetical person telling you that his biggest motive in that is fear of divine punishment?

so you don't even believe that truth is necessary

Yes, I do. As I said, they're not incorrigible and I have given up many beliefs that I held unreflectively after reflecting on them.

that would only affect some people

No man is an island. Once doubt creeps in to a sufficient degree, believers (sincere or merely pretenders) will eventually be challenged (if the challengers aren't suppressed) with not only the simple "why do you believe X?" but "you profess Y, but don't you know that X and Y contradict each other?" and the like. If the response of the defenders of the faith to the challenge (beyond suppression) simply amounts to "guys, come on, just believe. Our system provides societal cohesion" the response from the other side is obvious: "what social cohesion? We disagree with the false old way and want a change and that change can provide social cohesion not merely in addition to, but because it is resilient to attacks by virtue of its truth."

It's not, it just contains child nudity. There's a big difference between pornography and nudity.

If I could change the world...

I keep saying it, because it keeps being true: this is your best work yet.

Holy kino. Can i be in it too?

QRD on you (physical description, experience, etc.)?

not really interested in debating or explaining my personal beliefs

So what would you make of the hypothetical person telling you that his biggest motive in that is fear of divine punishment?

i would suggest that he didn't believe in his religion then

the response from the other side is obvious: "what social cohesion? We disagree with the false old way and want a change and that change can provide social cohesion not merely in addition to, but because it is resilient to attacks by virtue of its truth."

i would say that any revolutionary or reformist movement motivated purely by pedantry is unlikely to be well-organised or effective

physical description

178cm, 60kg, dark brown hair, beautiful eyebrows (everybody says so), above average penis, puffy nipples, smile too much which is a problem because when you smile too much people think you're retarded, i'm willing to correct that.

experience

Directed and starred in a short when i was 17 that is completely lost to time (five people on surrealmoviez watched it in 2010), other than that, none. I should say i speak english with a heavy ESL accent also.

This should be shown in a gallery.

No evading this for the 100th time now: tell me why you won't be my friend in private
I'm speculating one of the following reasons:

you're a private person with no centralized chatting software

you're a VIP and don't want to associate your identity with Anon Babble

you're asocial

you hate me and you want me to die

It's just my whiny wish to be your mate. hotrats tutamail if you'd be okay with that

He's afraid of falling in love obviously.

I'm just trying to understand the rules

Then do you really think that film is fucking “pornography”? It obviously is not.

Now we’re getting somewhere…

CALL THE FBI RIGHT FUCKING NOWWWWWWW!!!!!!!

I see. It was of course perfectly asexual and necessary for the plot. Are there any other examples of such films? Just to help me understand the distinction. I am passionate about learning.

i would suggest that he didn't believe in his religion then

Why? Where does that belief come from if not the religion? What's the essence of belief in a religion in your eyes?

i would say that any revolutionary or reformist movement motivated purely by pedantry is unlikely to be well-organised or effective

I'm not saying that their motives are exclusively some idealised pursuit of truth, only that their challenge amounts to exposing the old way as arbitrary, in contradiction with certain widely-held beliefs and unable to provide the unity it claims to as central to its justification. Do you think that the populace is just going to stand by (how did the uprising start?) and say "yeah, it's ultimately all arbitrary, man, but, I'm gonna stick with my religion just because it brings me comfort or something in spite of the fact that I know it's bullshit like you say and if the authorities conscript me to suppress your uprising then I'm gonna have to go along with it because I've made my bed and I have to lie in it or something" when the revolutionaries are precisely trying to argue with them from an at least partial common ground?

Yeah, "passionate about learning".

necessary for the plot.

Fuck off.

Cringiest gimmick since Dumontfag trying to convince everybody late Roeg is kino. Kys.

This guy is glowing.

These threads suck. I like the big lebowski

Where does that belief come from if not the religion?

well he doesn't believe that these things are immoral, he just obeys restrictions because he's afraid of divine punishment

only that their challenge amounts to exposing the old way as arbitrary

most revolutionaries only make arguments in terms of propaganda, the guys making these kinds of overly intellectual and pedantic arguments, whose main argument is one of hypocrisy rather than different values, never get much done

Then leave. Coen bros. are half a step above Marvel slop.

watch the siege and air america if you like roger deakins

I live in Hawaii and want to make a movie that has to do with night marchers. I was staying at a resort in hana on maui and was violently woken by voices chanting “KU…A’A” and it gave me an idea of a screenplay to write about jet ski fishing like i do but finding something that i shouldnt which starts a series of paranormal events. No major names just film students and locals.

Your father is chinese.

where the hell are you going to rent film equipment from in hawaii

From the mainland and ship it over.
Or just do the iPhone thing with attachments.

Or just do the iPhone thing with attachments.

lol

I live in Hawaii

I wish I was living in Hawaii. For all the things that Europe has going for it, like history, the climate is not it. 4 months of cold, 4 months of changing weather with lots of rain and 4 months of nice sunny weather. Bleh

well he doesn't believe that these things are immoral, he just obeys restrictions because he's afraid of divine punishment

Doesn't he? It doesn't seem to me that he has to be taken as saying "God's wrong, but I'm scared." The position seems to me to actually imply a resolve to change oneself inwardly too because God is all-knowing and commands not merely outward but inward submission) Also, how do you square that with what you said about belief in morals and God here ? and your statement about the nature of religious belief here ?

most revolutionaries only make arguments in terms of propaganda

Well that's just it: the truth is the best propaganda. The revolutionaries in this instance are saying both that the old way is bullshit and stands in the way of something better.

I love in Kawaii

Whats this from? I think I can jack off to it.

The position seems to me to actually imply a resolve to change oneself inwardly too because God is all-knowing

if he is afraid of divine punishment, and that is his motivation for FOLLOWING religion, then that suggests he doesn't FOLLOW his religion because he BELIEVES in his religion.

what you said about belief in morals and God here

talking about a different hypothetical

your statement about the nature of religious belief here

again, talking about a different hypothetical. different people follow/ believe religions for different reasons

the truth is the best propaganda.

lmao no it isn't, pandering to the beliefs of your audience, even if you obviously don't believe them, is the best propaganda

you're a private person with no centralized chatting software

Yes.

you're a VIP and don't want to associate your identity with Anon Babble

No.

you're asocial

Largely yes.

you hate me and you want me to die

Absolutely not.

Are you comfortable with Bau beating you up and belittling you?

I've been putting off watching this for years. I feel like I'll enjoy it but also feel that once it's done I've got nothing to keep as that one film you'll watch when the time is right.

What race are you

Based!!

Phoneposting from bed (I sleep naked btw hehe)
I gotchu Baubro. I'm a private person as well, and I honestly feel icky that my friends are on one centralized chatting platform. If it weren't for me feeling a moral obligation to keep in touch, I wouldn't use it either.

camera change

Question #2 of the day:
Would you rather molest a child or marathon the entire filmography of Sarah Gadon, with Gadonbro in the room next to you?

if he is afraid of divine punishment, and that is his motivation for FOLLOWING religion, then that suggests he doesn't FOLLOW his religion because he BELIEVES in his religion

I'd argue precisely the opposite. How can you be afraid of divine punishment without believing in a God that will punish you if you sin?

talking about a different hypothetical

But I can't see how it doesn't have bearing on this issue: you've drawn a distinction between believing in the ethical component of a religion and believing in a God and suggested that they can be in tension.

again, talking about a different hypothetical

Again, relevant insofar as you seem to be saying all religion is a ultimately rationalization aimed at social control in this world which would seem to render all talk about real vs sham religious believers to be null.

lmao no it isn't, pandering to the beliefs of your audience

Which is a large component of what I've said that they're doing, only that they're doing that by saying that a certain belief or group of beliefs held by the population in contradiction with the old way are in some sense better-justified or truer than the complete arbitrariness of the old way.

Watch it. You'll find another.

Stopmotion (2023).

Your father has been absent.

How can you be afraid of divine punishment without believing in a God that will punish you if you sin?

the point is that's not believing in the ideology and morality of religion

you've drawn a distinction between believing in the ethical component of a religion and believing in a God and suggested that they can be in tension.

well your new example is about someone who believes in god but doesn't believe in ethics, so the former has no bearing on the latter

all religion is ultimately a rationalization aimed at social control in this world

no, some people see it that way and some don't. we're now talking about someone who neither believes in religion as a tool and neither believes in it ethically. we're talking about someone who only follows religion because they believe that god will hurt them if they don't

only that they're doing that by saying that a certain belief or group of beliefs held by the population in contradiction with the old way are in some sense better-justified or truer than the complete arbitrariness of the old way.

well that has never been effective and never will be. on the contrary, liberals like you describe, will attack the effective revolutionaries for hypocrisy or failing to live up to moral values that they attack the ruling class for-the revolution is less important than the argument

the point is that's not believing in the ideology and morality of religion

My point is that I question that that's a meaningful distinction for the reason that I've given.

well your new example is about someone who believes in god but doesn't believe in ethics

I question precisely that he doesn't believe in ethics by virtue of fearing punishment for the reason given.

no, some people see it that way and some don't

You made the contrast in reply to my point that Muslims take the usefulness of their religion to be evidence for its truth and not itself a sufficient motive for belief apart from its truth.

well that has never been effective and never will be

I'm failing to understand the distinction you're making. What do you take pandering to the beliefs of the audience to be here? I don't think what I've described is in any way lofty. Their point is "why are you doing X, which is totally unjustified and against your interests when you could be doing Y, which is TRULY in line with your interests?" Explain your point about hypocrisy because it doesn't seem to be applicable to anything that I've said.

I question that that's a meaningful distinction

if you can't tell the difference between believing in ethics and following ethics because you believe god will kill you if you don't, there's no saving you

I question precisely that he doesn't believe in ethics by virtue of fearing punishment

ok let me restate this, what's the difference between believing murder is inherently wrong and believing god will punish you if you murder someone

You made the contrast in reply to my point that Muslims take the usefulness of their religion to be evidence for its truth and not itself a sufficient motive for belief apart from its truth.

word salad

Their point is "why are you doing X, which is totally unjustified and against your interests when you could be doing Y, which is TRULY in line with your interests?"

my point is that's unlikely to convince anyone with power unless it's completely trivial

I’m not reading all this shit

you're not missing anything, the /philm/ guy is just pedantic and slow

Tian Tian, the single mother of a five-year-old daughter, kills a drug dealer and is then pursued for vengeance. The only person she can turn to for help is her female cousin, Fang Di.

I liked the previous Vivian Qu movie, this one had poor reviews at Berlinale, but maybe it's a plebfilter or something.
t.me/isavebot?start=OpVZhHDqfi (no one fucking posting megas in telegram anymore, doing it through second hand bots that give you the file and shit cause of copyright strikes).
Cannot find any subs in open sources tho, there are subs on Avistaz tho, so maybe they'll get uploaded to opensubs soon.
Stranger Eyes also is up online, but I don't have a link for that.

You're still assblasted. I haven't even posted in this thread and I don't care for those guys' discussion. /philm/ is here to stay.

i wish it wasn't because y'all just dumb

You father sells Avon.

I’m the /philm/ guy. The two guys arguing are dumontfag and some other anon.

We're all assblasted here.

how the fuck can you not recognise me you dumb hater

Nice try but this isn’t my first rodeo. I’m a regular, I have seen these antics on Anon Babble many a time

Kek

the point is that it's obviously me, dingo, arguing with "dumontfag" or whatever, and owning him

if you can't tell the difference between believing in ethics and following ethics because you believe god will kill you if you don't there's no saving you

What does believing in ethics mean in the context of religion where an all-knowing, all-powerful God is a lawgiver? What does the belief that an all-powerful, all-knowing, law-giving God will punish you for violating his ethical laws imply? My point is that for one, you can't separate the ethical content of a religion from claims about God's nature, and two, that belief in God ultimately involves expectations about things that will happen and isn't just some kind of hermetically-sealed mental state that's chosen and held in the face of challenges completely arbitrarily.

my point is that's unlikely to convince anyone with power unless it's completely trivial

Really? Because you used very different words to say that. How is "pandering to the beliefs of your audience, even if you obviously don't believe them, is the best propaganda" not vulnerable to the same charge?

dingo

BODIED THAT FREAK

is Heil Hitler the most Anon Babble music video since The Story of O.J.?

You’re too new Dingo. Arguing with Dumontfag is the most newfaggy rookie mistake an anon here can do.

LET'S GO KNICKS

What does believing in ethics mean in the context of religion where an all-knowing, all-powerful God is a lawgiver?

it means believing in right and wrong independent of god's laws- which is christian doctrine, i might add

you can't separate the ethical content of a religion from claims about God's nature

you absolutely can lmao

that belief in God ultimately involves expectations about things that will happen

belief in god merely means belief that god exists

How is "pandering to the beliefs of your audience, even if you obviously don't believe them, is the best propaganda" not vulnerable to the same charge?

because it's not done aimed at the ruling class but at the masses
i'm beginning to understand this

Everyone accuses me of being some regular whenever I post and i'm just some guy who pops in from time to time. Take your meds fellas.

Unironically speaking, it's pretty much performance art. The Hitler speech sampled at the end goes crazy, and I saw a Hitler edit (lol) yesterday that was kinda hype. Nevertheless, the whole Ye meltdown of the last 2 weeks has been maybe the most obvious psyop I've seen in my whole life. The powers that be are desperate! They wanna play black against white, white against jew, nazi against non nazi, etc. Just ridiculousness.

the whole Ye meltdown of the last 2 weeks

I’m glad I have absolutely no fucking idea what you’re talking about

it means believing in right and wrong independent of god's laws- which is christian doctrine, i might add

Is it? Pretty sure that there are lots of Christians who accept some form of Divine Command Theory.

you absolutely can lmao

Cool. So what's the essence of religious belief? Then kindly address the crux of the argument that applies regardless.

because it's not done aimed at the ruling class but at the masses

The only person who's mentioned the ruling classes is you. I don't know why you took what I was saying to refer to just addressing the ruling class.

The only person who's mentioned the ruling classes is you

I was mistaken, strictly speaking , but the wider point still stands as far as I can see.

Although Christianity does not entail divine command theory, people commonly associate the two.

it is obviously untrue that christians only believe actions are moral if god orders it or immoral if god commands against it

So what's the essence of religious belief?

you can believe in the moral values of a religion and not believe in god, that's what liberalism is

I don't know why you took what I was saying to refer to just addressing the ruling class.

who else would be carrying out religious/ ideological doctrine???

it is obviously untrue that christians only believe actions are moral if god orders it or immoral if god commands against it

Is it? Pretty sure that there are lots of Christians who accept some form of Divine Command Theory.

you can believe in the moral values of a religion and not believe in god, that's what liberalism is

Sure. Not an answer to either of my questions, though.

who else would be carrying out religious/ ideological doctrine???

As I said here , everyday religious believers, for one.

Pretty sure that there are lots of Christians who accept some form of Divine Command Theory.

i would argue that they don't have a true understanding of christian morality then

Not an answer to either of my questions, though.

i'm refuting your point that "you can't separate the ethical content of a religion from claims about God's nature"

everyday religious believers

it's probably not a good idea to try to engage in an ideological debate with illiterate peasants

Afternoons of Solitude sucked. It's fucking Liberte all over again where Serra is indulging in repetetive bullshitn which he thinks is endlessly engrossing or something but it's not at all. Nothing special visually, the angles chosen look like a football match cinematography. And that's basically the movie, it's almost 2 hours of the main guy bullfighting. It's a documentary about him yet I do not know any more about him than I did before watching it. He is just a crazy adrenaline junkie like all bullfighters. There's nothing entertaining about this sport, it's retarded but Serra shoots it as we're supposed to fascinated with the subject matter by default. Spaniards are fucking delusional, no one gives a fuck about you retards fighting or running away from bulls through the streets or whatever. This is some shitty replacement for gladiator fights of old, a facsimile of masculinity for the ultraliberal cuck nation nu-Spain is, impotent garbage. It would be interesting if the film explored exactly that, but it does not, it's just cultural masturbation.
I like a lot of Serra's output, but this is an example of one of his shittier, more indulgent sides.

i would argue that they don't have a true understanding of christian morality then

On what grounds? Does the fact that their beliefs aren't true matter?

i'm refuting your point that "you can't separate the ethical content of a religion from claims about God's nature"

Sorry, I should've phrased that more carefully. I mean to say that when discussing the essence of a religion, you can't separate the ethical content of a religion from claims about God's nature. Again, that's ultimately beside the point which is that religious belief involves commitments to the truth of certain propositions.

it's probably not a good idea to try to engage in an ideological debate with illiterate peasants

Be that as it may, I neither specified illiteracy nor that they were peasantry. The point is that people's religious beliefs, like any other, are to some extent responsive to reason and as such, a very simple kind of attack of the nature that I specified has the potential to, however gradually, lead to at the very least, some kind of shift in belief supposing that it's not suppressed (suppression being motivated by fear of what???).

*some kind of shift in belief and ensuing social change

Solid review. Got a letter b?

Does the fact that their beliefs aren't true matter?

if you believe something that means you truly believe something. if you don't trult believe something, then you don't believe it

when discussing the essence of a religion

my point is there is no essence and people engage with religion in different ways and for different reasons

religious belief involves commitments to the truth of certain propositions

it involves lip service to certain propositions, it rarely requires total committment

. The point is that people's religious beliefs, like any other, are to some extent responsive to reason and as such, a very simple kind of attack of the nature that I specified has the potential to, however gradually, lead to at the very least, some kind of shift in belief

if you believe that you're incredibly naiive

American football is intellectual counterfeit to me when compared to a good bull stabbing you in the ass.

if you believe something that means you truly believe something

What does that mean?

it involves lip service to certain propositions, it rarely requires total committment

So can you, say, be a Christian and deny that God exists or is of the nature specified by the Bible and religious authorities or is the word "Christian" compatible with any set of beliefs?

if you believe that you're incredibly naiive

It's obviously an incredibly schematic example with the point being to illustrate that people are responsive to challenges to their beliefs on the grounds that those beliefs aren't true and that claims about the usefulness of a belief cannot outlive widespread belief that the belief is false.

American football is intellectual counterfeit money compared to a good Cap'n Jazz song

What does that mean?

it means that you don't pretend to believe something because you think god will kill you if you don't

So can you, say, be a Christian and deny that God exists or is of the nature specified by the Bible and religious authorities

you can not believe those things but still pay lip service to them

people are responsive to challenges to their beliefs on the grounds that those beliefs aren't true and that claims about the usefulness of a belief cannot outlive widespread belief that the belief is false.

i think that's naiive and the only people who would actually be convinced by that are sheltered academics and gullible autists

Cap'n Jazz is intellectual counterfeit when compared to 125, rue Montmartre.

it means that you don't pretend to believe something because you think god will kill you if you don't

You are misrepresenting me. I never spoke about pretending to believe, I spoke about the intimate relationship between beliefs about God and beliefs about the good for a religious person. Apart from that, I mean what do you mean in general about truly believing something. Surely truly believing something is incompatible with believing that your belief is anything but true, but you seem to be saying otherwise and that believing something doesn't require belief in its truth (or more concretely, that, say, "I believe that God exists" and "I believe that it is true that God exists" are not synonymous), but you're not really explaining your alternative position.

you can not believe those things but still pay lip service to them

But is the term "Christian" applicable to such a person?

i think that's naiive and the only people who would actually be convinced by that are sheltered academics and gullible autists

I think the denial of the dictionary-level understanding of belief as involving belief in something being true is far more autistic and academic-brained, but what do I know?

It's a documentary about him yet I do not know any more about him than I did before watching it.

many cinephiles are still so fixated on Freudian character psychology and the hero's journey progression. aren't we supposed to be the creative ones who love to catch the lapses from our morally and sensually contained and authorized everyday life? who love works for their visions most out of our world's order of understanding?
existence is dominated by ambivalence. we know people our whole lives and we never can read even one thought that the closest people to us have. we are like cameras deciphering gestures and expressions and that's natural to us.

, I spoke about the intimate relationship between beliefs about God and beliefs about the good for a religious person.

there isn't one

what do you mean in general about truly believing something.

exactly what i said, not pretending to believe in something but actually believing in it. you keep saying belief when you're actually talking about pretending to believe in something because otherwise god will kill you. it's very obvious

you seem to be saying otherwise and that believing something doesn't require belief in its truth (or more concretely, that, say, "I believe that God exists" and "I believe that it is true that God exists" are not synonymous),

what the fuck are you talking about, i'm being very plain and you're the one not understanding me

But is the term "Christian" applicable to such a person?

more or less

I think the denial of the dictionary-level understanding of belief as involving belief in something being true

don't get snippy with me, the only reason you're adding true onto the end is because you cannot comprehend someone believing something that has been proven to be untrue

I wonder what happened to that fellow who would regularly post that picture of Monica Bellucci's bosom on these threads? Or to the exemplary Tsaiposter? Neither were confidants of mine, but it's tragic to see colleagues-in-posting reduced to grave fodder.

Get a room you two.

I do miss Tsaibro

Tsaisis left without a word and I think their absence has really made Anon Babble feel like we’ve lost too many of the OG regulars

I'm new to art/classic films. How do I get better at analyzing and interpreting films?

watch more films

read books about film analysis

read books about filmmaking

watch documentaries on film and filmmaking

read classic and modern literature

but most importantly watch more films

there isn't one

Isn't there? Pretty sure that there are lots of Christians who accept some form of Divine Command Theory.

not pretending to believe in something but actually believing in it

Your definition seems to me hopelessly circular. Someone who really believes is someone who doesn't falsely believe.

more or less

So what's your answer to the question "is someone paying lip service to Christian belief and nothing more a truer Christian than someone who believes in something like Divine Command Theory and fears divine punishment?"

the only reason you're adding true onto the end is because you cannot comprehend someone believing something that has been proven to be untrue

If that proof in question is describing a something that happened to them, then yes, I hold that that is incomprehensible. And I would have thought that someone who claims to believe in the principle of non-contradiction and opposes academic-brain and autism would take issue with someone saying, for example, "I believe that God exists, though it is true that God does not exist".

art/classic films

just keep in mind, not all classics are art.
lot of talkies and Marilyn Monroe shit was literally bread and circus slop of that time. sort of like capeshit of the old days.

Say her name.

Heat is overrated, trust me, you can actually protect yourself from the cold better and it can be cozy, extreme heat makes you go crazy, it cooks your brain, i genuinely believe part of why there's so much violence in latam and Africa is the heat.

Why do you give a fuck about that shit? Just watch the films. You’re a human being, if you’re able to experience a film then your brain will react to the film. That’s it.

Pretty sure that there are lots of Christians who accept some form of Divine Command Theory.

and there are lots of christians who don't

Someone who really believes is someone who doesn't falsely believe.

are you ESL??? what the fuck is this, a true belief is one that someone actually holds. a false belief is one that somebody only pretends to hold. that is irrespective of whether the true belief is true or not. this is just basic semantics that you seem incapable of understanding.

So what's your answer to the question "is someone paying lip service to Christian belief and nothing more a truer Christian than someone who believes in something like Divine Command Theory and fears divine punishment?"

i would say they're both christians and idc which one is a truer christian

If that proof in question is describing a something that happened to them, then yes, I hold that that is incomprehensible

people are completely capable of being indenial that something happened or not caring that something happened

I would have thought that someone who claims to believe in the principle of non-contradiction and opposes academic-brain and autism would take issue with someone saying, for example, "I believe that God exists, though it is true that God does not exist".

i believe in non-contradiction as it applies to my beliefs. i don't believe in god. i also have no idea why anyone would say "it is true that god does not exist", as it's impossible to prove either way