Just saw this today

Just saw this today
One of the few films that made me HyperVentilate due to laughter.

Anybody wanna discuss?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=-fny99f8amM
youtu.be/Ch5VorymiL4
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>the muslims aren't the problem it's hypernormalization

>hides in the Internet to avoid reality

the internet is reality now. don't be a little bitch like adam curtis, accept your doom.

I only watched the first thirty minutes.

was really informative. not sure why you were laughing, though

Here's the link

youtube.com/watch?v=-fny99f8amM

It was OK. Like all Adam Curtis films it selectively uses evidence that fits his narrative.

His history on Assad and Gaddafi was hilariously inaccurate.

Nah, we elected our doom 3 weeks ago. Gonna be a fun ride down to hell though

Mainly because its just an amazing story at the end of the day. Plus its probably the most ironic grand narratives ive seen in a while

he seems to believe trump was popular because we didn't have all the facts. wait till he figures out we had the facts and did it anyway for the lulz

super-computers are automatically filtering out anything you don't want to see

Hello, I'd like to report an error. Seems my agents caused my life to be filled with retards.

"lulz" votes were a microscopic percentage. Around 60 million people just vote republican every election for some reason.

This is the first Adam Curtis movie ive seen, so idk what else he's done. But Documentary at its core is about picking and choosing your material to fit your narrative. So.....I guess I agree???

The far more likely possibility is nothing drastic will happen because the presidency is meaningless.

The presidency may be, but a full congress and future court ruled by one party, and a cabinet of people either underqualified for or openly antagonist to their department does matter

The problem arises when you start ignoring much more compelling information because it doesn't suit your narrative.

Then with adam curtis, he just literally makes up a load of bullshit then finds the craziest, most fringe people in existence to back up his idiotic ideas.

Once he started talking about super-computers eliza'ing everyone on the internet into their own pocket internets where they're only interacting with eliza-bots, as if its something that actually happened or is possible, you should've been laughing heartily.

Party lines are meaningless since citizens united.

I think he was trying to connect Putin's use of confusion to win elections with Trumps last 12 month media shit-show, which puts a lot in perspective

>Putin's use of confusion to win elections

>implying putin's elections are legit in the slightest

He wasn't wrong with regards to that, why do you think places like tumblr have communities that they do, and why all those faggots on facebook made those 'if you supported trump unfriend me right now' posts. Most people are just in their own echo box to circle jerk their opinions. His anecdotal story just illustrated that people tended to gravitate towards that comfort and away from opposed opinion.

A: that isn't new or unique to social media.

B: what curtis was saying is there was some third party process automatically doing this with supercomputers to everyone and replacing their facebook/tumblr friends with ELIZAs.

So in a documentary about people finding excuses to discard all information, adam curtis puts forth a narrative where "ANYTHING ANYONE ELSE LIKES THAT I DON'T WAS POSTED BY A COMPUTER!"

By "Ironic", Are you suggesting Curtis was memeing the whole film? That his whole narrative is ironic? He might go over board sometimes and generlize shit, but i don't about him being ironic

but everyone likes putin over there, he doesn't need to be tricky. that's the thing liberal media does where you try to paint people as being stupid or tricked because you don't like who they voted for.

>everyone likes putin over there
and any journalist that reports otherwise vanishes without a trace

The majority of people vote party line, and in general they've got pretty sound reasons to do it.

Trump might be a great president or he might be a terrible one. He might do an excellent job furthering his agendas and the agendas of his party or he might get caught in a quagmire and sit as a lame duck for four years. But one thing he will definitely be is a Republican.

If you're a Republican, and you agree with the majority of the Republican Party's ideas, then you want someone pushing those ideas in office. Even if he's terrible and his opponent is great, you're still going to vote for him, because you'd rather have him do a shitty job moving in your direction than the other guy doing an excellent job moving in the opposite direction.

It's because of this that some countries do away with voting for candidates altogether. The Spanish Congress of Deputies, for instance, just has voters select a party, and the seats are then divvied up proportionate to the votes received per party.

this stinks of blue pills and obfuscation literally every viewpoint i've seen so far is lefty

its strange how it didn't go into the types of people who build their echo-chambers around themselves and take them wherever they go.

The idea that Putin rigged the U.S. election in any way is the dumbest fucking thing (((they))) ever came up with.

Pretty fucking dumb of him to liken trump's success purely on disinformation

What else would u expect from the big black cock network

Yes but social media is the largest scale of which it has occurred by far.

And I am pretty sure the narrative being presented was that algorithms like for example those that recommend things based on your activity, create those pockets.

>adam curtis puts forth a narrative where "ANYTHING ANYONE ELSE LIKES THAT I DON'T WAS POSTED BY A COMPUTER!"
Where does he say that?

Trust me, I was. But his goal of this narrative was to connect seemingly unrealted information into a perspective that, while a little far-fetched, show the failures a inter-connected world and we were, and still are, to overstimulated to properly deal with it. So that as the intention, I think he ace'd this movie.

Plus, I don't think a documentarians duty is to fully investigate with fine toothed comb for truth, just their perceptions of truth through a narrative. The former is the journalists job
[Internally laughing]

There's several problems with your romantic views of US politics.

For starters, by voting habits, every elected official in the united states is between mid-authoritarian mid-right and slightly left of mid-authoritarian mid-right. There's been no real deviation from this for decades.

Secondly, the "republican party" is in complete shambles. The tea party shredded it and trump shredded it further.

>eliza'ing everyone
Not what he said really.. He was talking about specific content costumized for user profiles, and how it creates a worldview bubble, which is a very real thing. Just compare Youtube now to its earlier years. Yea sure you can tweak stuff but normies wouldn't even bother with tweaking, just gobble up what ever is in front of them

One, it's not U.S. politics, it's party politics. And two, even if we're taking your statements as fact, I don't see how any of that changes the value of voting party line if a voter agrees with that party's politics.

>Just compare Youtube now to its earlier years.

I'm not in the practice of comparing shit to shit. You fucking morons who actually thought there was a community on "music and video hosting site" are goddamn morons.

Besides, the content control curtis was talking about only affects A D V E R T I S I N G. Seeing hillary banners or trump banners or volkswagon banners isn't creating an insular digital reality for people.

Lmao at nu-males on suicide watch

Because people are pigeonholed into one of the two parties just about arbitrarily? Party politics as a concept has been dead for decades as there is bipartisan agreement on just about everything that passes through congress other than meaningless hotbutton issues?

The irony being the story, both with assads use of suicide bombing turning into the middle east downfall and with the goal of perception management being to stabalize the US backfiring into the birth of Isis and the Arab spring. I remember other examples but those two specifically coming to mind.

chick looks hot. movie looks lame and preachy

does she have any nudity?

The problem here being how adam curtis clearly did go full "fine tooth comb" to support his narrative while specifically avoiding huge mountains of contradictory information.

What contradictory information are you talking about, what are the most glaring omissions?

In regards to?

The fact the super-computers curtis was panicking about only control ad content. That's a pretty goddamn huge one.

Also the fact most people knew gadaffi was a clown-puppet.

>The fact the super-computers curtis was panicking about only control ad content
How bluepilled can you get?

negro fucking please.

Just the fact that Sup Forums is filled with retards is evidence enough his eliza-bot supercomputer swarm is a load of shit.

A lot more than ads use analytics to serve data. Pretty much most social media uses it to some degree, whether it is recommending videos, friends, news stories, websites or whatever.

And the general population is pretty ignorant towards Gadaffi, hell many Americans believe they went to war with Iraq because of 9/11. Most of the west is pretty uneducated when it comes to the middle east.

you don't need "supercomputers" to do ad content anyway. Even managing financial assets on the orders of Aladdin doesn't require as much as people think, certainly not supercomputer scale assets - I'm not saying you could do it with your standard PC of course.

Supercomputing is mostly used for weather modeling, nuclear research, molecular dynamics and gene research, not ads or finance.

Looks good for a chuckle and the occasional bit of recycled insight like "social media reinforces our own bullshit" and "truth doesn't matter anymore".

Obviously gaddafi was clown but was his point was more about the scapegoating of gaddafi as way to both avoid confronting Assad and creating a "supervillian" for American to focus on to further the point that fantasy is becoming the. New reality.

The supercomputer part was more to show the idiocy of blind faith in a free world void of contamination via the Internet.

>The majority of people vote party line, and in general they've got pretty sound reasons to do it.

Nah, not really. Most people actively vote against their best interests among two candidates that have no one's best interest in mind.

They do this not because they're stupid but because they're conditioned to believe in a systemic change. The Truck-Driver Americans that live between the coasts literally don't know any better. Paypal founder Peter Thiel is getting closer to the executive branch and the dude invests in automation.

Same thing happened on the other side in 2008.

I can't fucking wait for the Baltics to get steamrolled.

The point being, no one fell for it. Everyone clearly saw gaddafi as a clown, not a supervillian or threat.

Curtis basically takes the narrative the US pushed as fact.

Jane Fonda in a exercise video is all your gonna get homie

>using the "works fine for me :^)" excuse

Mate, the Sup Forums audience is tiny compared to how many people actually use the internet. Do you not understand that Sup Forums is accepted by the vast majority of western society as the dangerous ass-end of the internet because that's exactly what they are told?

>people know Gaddafi was a clown
I disagree. Even if you're in your 30's now, it's not likely you were aware of current events during the 90's/00's to pay attention to the minutiae of middle eastern politics.
A similar example: did you notice any Hillary coverage that dealt with how loathed she was in the 90's? No one was dragging up skits with Norm McDonald slamming her for being a liar nonstop. The media said it was about sexism, and the people who weren't aware enough in the 90's (her youth base that she pandered to) believed it.

I'm a little bit into it right now, yeah this guy is completely fucking confused or has an agenda. I fucking HATE it when these people say "banks" and "corporations" and shit as a generalization and not (((banks))) and (((corporations))). This guy being part of the BBC probably has got a lot to do with it. I can see he's trying to make the connection without actually saying it while still believing in typical mainstream ideas. This guy is really bending quite a bit of truth to fit his narrative though. I don't like how he's placing all the blame on (((Kissinger))) when there were many many more players and the destabilizing of the region was on a national level, not individual based. It just seems all over the place.

I find most of his criticism to be unfounded or mostly due to his British upbringing. I think one of his major flaws is the blaming of institution and not resource control and manipulation due to international politics and diplomacy which is what I see as the major culprit. Still I was mistaken there are plenty of hidden viewpoints in this and is an interesting watch. There are a lot of places where he's very close to being right but just barely off target.

You're really just helping my argument, ya know. The media attempted to whitewash clinton as a diversity candidate, it failed because too many people knew her inside and out from her 90s and 00s coverage, resulting in said people disengaging from the purveyors of manufactured narratives and voting what they knew (or not at all). For the vast majority of people don't let anyone tell them what they know to be true is wrong. No matter how much evidence is against them or how little evidence is for them.

Furthermore, gaddafi was a huge figure in media of the late 90s and early 00s. To the point where people were simply overjoyed when he died, not because they were scared of him (as the media never had him doing anything but boasting and clown antics) but because they were sick of hearing about him. He wasn't even funny anymore by the time he was in the UN spewing gibberish. It was just sad.

Not even mentioning how "DUH LIBRUL MEDIA" turned on clinton/dems the instant the election was over for not being sufficiently diverse to energize the SJW boogeyman.

Nah, people totally fell for it when it was happening. I'm talking millions of stay at home moms and people who barely have time for the news. Same with WMD's being inspired by The Rock.

But even if you didn't fall for it, the point being that we'd rather "create" gaddafi then deal with assad and a stable Middle east.

doom 3 rules dude!
hell ya!

That reminds me of another problem I had with it. He spends the entire thing whining about "the left" not being involved enough in US politics and complaining about how they retreated or whatever. Problem being is there is not now nor ever was a "left" in US politics. No major candidate in US history has so much as been further left than mid-right, much less moderate. There was simply no entry vectors for left politics in the military-industrial complex run establishment of the cold war, and there's actually less now in the completely corporatist establishment.

So of course anyone who wasn't mid-right would just retreat from US politics and, instead, try to change minds, rather than policy.

Also claiming the only people who can handle the complexities of reality are politicians is pretty fucking insane.

>people totally fell for it

negro you're in your 20s.

I don't understand how a man can be so dead on in some places, and almost completely miss the mark in others. There are certain cultural attitude shifts he outright ignores when I'd say they're actually quite important to the story, and the implication that Brexit's core reason for existence came from an innate fear of suicide bombing and little else, is a very tunnel-visioned understanding of the act. If anything I'd say it's more along the lines of Hypernormalisation to ACCEPT something like the EU to begin with ("oh, we need to be in this organisation to stop another world war from starting up? Quick, make it happen!"). I also think the complete lack of attention given to Hillary Clinton or the Clintons in general was a little unfair (not saying he shouldn't have focused on Trump, more that it would have been nice to see both candidates spoken about). Adam says he's sympathetic towards Neoconservatism, and it definitely shoes.

I enjoyed getting an actual crash course into the genesis of Islamic suicide bombing, though. I don't know just how much of it is accurate (suicide bombing spread all over Islam because of a few Shiites talking to some Sunnis in just one Israeli camp?) but it all seemed pretty plausible.

There has been a ton of left wing influence and more so than ever in the past 8 years. There have been plenty of left wing establishments in the White House. It's just that their policies extended within the border of the U.S. When it came to outside there hasn't been a single president who has been "left" so to speak ever since the isolationist days because the Soviets and now because Israel.

> If anything I'd say it's more along the lines of Hypernormalisation to ACCEPT something like the EU to begin with ("oh, we need to be in this organisation to stop another world war from starting up? Quick, make it happen!").

It's not so much that as it is "okay, we're in a bad spot, but lets try not to make things even worse, okay? We can't cut off the nose to spite the face."

>what curtis was saying is there was some third party process automatically doing this
There literally is a process like that on facebook which selects what appears on your wall.

Negro, all the "left influence" on US politics doesn't extend beyond the social media circles. Politicians and corporations are only playing lip service to ideas of diversity and multiculturalism and left ideals in general as long as they don't actually cost anything.

The social justice warrior is literally nothing but a boogeyman to keep people voting republican.

The problem is curtis is saying it applies to the entire internet. Not just singular sites based upon your fucking input. Some automated process that is actively adjusting your reality to something other than what you want.

Who's paying you bro?

Nice triplets yo
I didn't say I knew what was going on at the time. Relatives did though

You're totally not getting the point of the film, in USSR literally everyone knew that the country was shit while simultaneously everyone praised it for its glory, that was a clear parallel to that.

He's not saying that. He's saying people naturally congregate towards others with similar belief systems. Automation helps reinforce this behavior instead of stopping it.

Absolutely no one, my comrade. :^)

No, he doesn't say that applies to literally every site. For 99% of internet users the massive sites that do it, are actually their entire internet. You are a total sperg, hope you realize that someday.

There is an insincere quality to your posts.

Either someone is paying you, or you are yourself completely dead inside.

So hes saying that morons are doing what they always did, except in a more visible fashion.

...

at least they got to pick their own type of worse rather than the plutocrats type of worse. and that's a win imo.

Might have to do with how you're quoting two different people.

It applies to both. I notice it quite a lot of the time, it often feels like I am no longer speaking to real people.

No, he doesn't. Congratulations a bbc documentary was 2d4u.

Style over substance for most of it, still Curtis is a genius at what he does. Bitter Lake is superior in every sense except maybe entertainment value if you are a normie or not used to cinematic essay.

I liked how he expanded on vladislav serkov who was a subject on one of his previous short films. But he fails at seeing the whole point of non-linearity in politics or politics as performance art, which to me is the only way it can be done in a hiperconnected world.

Biggest problem with the film is that curtis does exactly what he criticizes the western world of doing. He points his fingers at many issues but when he has to come to a conclusion he offers none. Is he afraid of being wrong? I think he is more afraid of having a point of view. Also his liberal bias is the result of the same fake narratives created by the media that he acknowledges but then doesn't see in his own work.

Tell me more about how you often feels like you are no longer speaking to real people.

Guess where you are on the pyramid.

Yes, but it has more to do with scale and self-reinforcement more than anything else. People like to say that this has always been happening, and that's true, but it's never been at this level nor rate.

Saying that is sort of like saying "we've always been producing waste and burning landfills, whats different now?" while the city steeps in shit.

eh, FDR, LBJ and Truman were all pretty left-wing on several domestic policy issues. The "midline" has drifted to the right so even Nixon looks like a leftwinger (support for EPA and universal healthcare reform, along with opening relations to China)

nah, not really, perhaps in social issues, but little else.

>since the isolationist days.
even then we were intervening back and forth in Latin America, Haiti and the Philippians

The social dynamics of the sub-classes have been pretty much static over the last century, with only changes being how they engage in their behavior.

The only real difference is, now, YOU can see it.

it's dumb but trump seriously alleges that he won the popular vote which is even dumber.

You are saying illegals didn't in states that don't require voting ID after Obama explicitly encouraged them to vote? Do you know about the many voter fraud tactics used by the democrats? There's no proof Trump won the popular vote, maybe he did, maybe he didn't but what is really dumb is to dismiss the idea just because.

voter fraud is standard for both sides in elections, stop being silly.

Voter fraud is the advantage of the party in power.

what's even dumber is how many of you still fall for trump's shit stirring. hook line and sinker.

Enormous amounts of money have been paid out of (((pocket)) for continued Hollywood success every year. In lobbyists giving freebies worth fortunes to weak minded easily manipulated politicians to vote a certain way. The foundations of the country are completely rotted and to far gone. Left leaning judges have passed laws. Institutions of education and media have been taken completely over by the left and are in the process of indoctrinating an entire generation. Everything from your lawyer to your work. You gonna say all that is just social media too?

You can really stop with the ((())) crap, you're really just bitching about citizens united and your continual "da joos" talk just indicates ignorance of what citizens united means.

For corporations are legally considered citizens and now they can donate limitless amounts to whomever they choose.

His films are a lot more enjoyable and coherent if you watch them in a chronological order. Start with Pandora's Box, his most traditional style of films, then proceed onwards through film series like The Living Dead (still extremely relevant), The Century of the Self, All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace, before you tackle Bitter Lake and Hypernormalisation. If you can as well, watch the shorts he made for Charlie Brooker, they're very much a distilled early form of Hypernormalisation.

Does this kino BTFO Drumpf?

When people say corporations it's like they're putting Vaseline their ears and eyes. It's so retarded. Corporations are privately owned entities with the owner calling all the shots. Near every single major corp in the U.S. has a founder and owner who passes it on to his kids. Things have not changed at ALL since ancient times. There are still people at the top part of a hegemony and those people at the top control the rest of the populace. It is always like that and always will be. They just get better and better at hiding the fact.

he's also got a film on public housing
>"Inquiry: The Great British Housing Disaster"
youtu.be/Ch5VorymiL4

shit

...

worst get

WASTED

Not really. If anything it makes him seem smarter than he probably is. You'd probably be defensive if you're a Trump Supporter though (Hillary too but her platform was bog standard, and this film is more about the enthusiasm and vitriol surrounding Trump and shifting reform rhetoric).

checked

Well I guess this thread is dead.

You're underestimating how corporate entities have blurred (to meaninglessness, in the case of "white") racial divisions in service of an almost self-regulating financial system. You're basically holding tight to old racial identities that don't actually mean anything anymore, to anyone, except people who view them as the reason they're not a winner.

WHITNESSED

>he uses his gets to recommend a lesser known film that you might enjoy, not spout memes
good work user