Dude sociopathy lmao

>dude sociopathy lmao

Why do modern movies glorify mental illness like this?

some call it a curse, some think of it a a gift

stop being a bigot

how is it glorified

It doesn't, it's a metaphor for sensationalist journalism.

not sure but come watch drive at c,y,t,u,(dot),be/r/supercomfy

we going all day marathon boy

>LOL COMPLETELY INVISIBLE IN A BRIGHT RED DODGE CHALLENGER

Awful movie.

A transparently obvious one too

Still a good movie though

It's funny that americans accept sociopaths if they create jobs.

Nice fedora

And a bit of a satire on the current job market too. Best scene is the one where he sounds like a lunatic trying to sell himself to a construction site manager. Actually saying aloud the bullshit you're required to write on job applications and interviews makes its seem so absurd

TDK started it
every teenager thought that the Joker was cool

Nice argument.

Because hordes of morons tend do adore sociopaths if they're charismatic enough and say the right things

He succeeds while doing outrageous shit with little to no repercussions.

I blame Scorsese and his peers for starting this trend.

Europeans started it when the worse acts of mercantilism are obviously sociopathic.

>$.50 has been deposited in your account

>Le correct the record maymay xD

If you consider being shell of a man and a weirdo 'succeeding'...

Agreed. Heck, I'd say you don't even have to be charismatic to succeed as a sociopath.

Fake damage control is obvious

Whether he succeeds or not isn't really the point. The point is what it takes to get ahead in the increasingly tough jobs market today, at least according to the director.

That's the only thing he cared about, so he must have.

Oh yeah, he liked his plant too. Forgot about that.

I actually started this thread because some retard in another thread a few days ago tried to argue that Lou was pretty much a normal person. I forgot to look at the thread again after I posted a reply, and he came back at me with the most autistic and fallacious argument I have ever seen. I just saw it today, so I figured I'd make a thread in a similar vein.

Undoubtedly there are people on Sup Forums who think they're Lou or that he's something to admire, I guess. I guy like that would get taken down by other people so fast in the real world.

>Why do modern movies glorify mental illness like this?


because film is a short medium, you can make it seem alright without the eventual self inflected demise aka crashing this plane

Lou was a terrible human being but some of the worst sociopaths in the world run countries and companies.

If u paied attention he did nothing wrong everything he did:

> undercutting the competion

> selling out coworkers

> pressuring women for sex

Is all things we except in tg is society. He was just taking tgose things to tgeir natural conclusion. We call lou bloom a sociopath for doing the very same things we do everyday and tgink we are beyond reproach just because we don't tale them as far as lou bloom does

Yes, I know. He tried to say Lou wasn't a sociopath though and tried to tie it back to what he saw as the average person's indifference to the suffering of strangers.

I made that thread lol. How was my argument fallacious?

Lou indirectly killed and severely hurt someone he knew to be douchebags, you are letting completely innocent africans die because you want that extra cheeseburger from BK.

You're the mentaly ill if you think this movie was portraying it in any kind of positive light.

I remember that. I think he was a sociopath himself

>every bad person should get their comeuppance! thats how the world works!
grow up and appreciate neocinema

It's Sup Forums. I talk to maybe ten sociopaths a day from various boards.

I'm not surprised someone from here saw Lou as normal.

How did you hit g instead of h three separate times and not notice?

That's not a surprise. Sup Forums and primarily Sup Forums are full of might-makes-right Darwinists that think their cynicism would translate to superiority in "the real world". That their lack of feeling puts them ahead of others. Let them have it, it's all they've got

>Why do modern movies glorify mental illness like this?
the fuck are you on about
since when did modern movies start glorifying mental illness? because i'm pretty sure that like in Nightcrawler, those with mental illness are portrayed in a very negative way

Because it's actually a satire of modern job market in a capitalist country.

>exploits employees
>eliminates competition through any means
>extorts higher powers to gain more power
>ruthless and relentless

It shows in a semi-realistic fashion what a guy that starts with NOTHING needs to get ahead in these days, and it's pretty good at it too.

>he does not root for the bad guys

I wish normies would go away.

Africans suffer because of a systemic problem. A single individual doesn't cause that problem, nor can an individual fix that situation. There is little to nothing an individual, especially one one on the other side of the world, completely divorced from the politics of the situation, can do. Nobody profits from Africans suffering either. Normal people don't want Africans to suffer, especially since there is nothing to gain on an individual level.

Lou causes people he actually knows to suffer for personal gain. Those people didn't have to suffer if Lou hadn't chosen to cause them to.

That says more about the world than his metal state. It's fucked up that a man like that can succeed. The movie is literally doing the opposite.

He means why do movies make compelling anti-heroes out of sociopaths and villains. It seems the "love to hate them" mindset has become the norm for writing protagonists, instead of making a villain that's entertaining to watch you have shows like your pic, 5 seasons of watching this guy fuck people over because it's just too fun not too.

This is how the real world works.

Psychos who subliminate their shit almost always occupy positions with lots of power.

I agree that there is a disproportionate amount of psychos in leadership roles, but it certainly isn't a requirement.

Lou was an intelligent fellow. He could have chosen a legitimate career path and excel in that if he had wanted.

"Corporations are people too" -Mitt Romney

Lou is what would happen if a person acted like corporations do, driven entirely by profit with no regard for human life, love, or decency.

But he didn't because he was a sleazy, sociopathic low life and also possibly autistic.

That was just who he was.

I don't agree. I think capitalism excels precisely at this. Since this system pretty much claims that triumph goes hand in hand with competition, then obviously ppl who compete the best are the ones that'll triumph. And competing the best doesn't mean following the rules.

Also normal ppl rarely want to be in positions of power.

Right. That's where the social commentary about the job market comes in. He chose to fill a shady role because he felt there weren't any opportunities in a legitimate field. Or at least he saw the first opportunity he could worm his way into and took it without a second thought.

The cause of the suffering in Africa is irrelevant, what is relevant and you are completely wrong about is that 1 person can make a difference. Of course 1 person can't fix the whole problem, but that is just a copout for 1 person to do nothing at all. You can for example sponsor a single child giving him access to food and education. This has a very minor cost for the average western guy, and has a huge impact on the live of the african child and his family, and yet very few people choose to help.

Lou actually knew the people were douchebags yes, I would say causing douchebags harm is less of an integrity breach than letting innocent people die.

Well he started out a lowlife too. Remember he was stealing manhole covers and cutting up fencing to sell for cash at the scrapyard and he beat the shit out of that guy that tried to stop him from stealing the fencing.

Lou was never a good guy.

I think it's more than a stretch to say every powerful person was willing to do anything and everything to get to where he is. Many people are normal but simply ambitious and competent enough to rise to the top, with a lot of luck too of course.

>The cause of the suffering in Africa is irrelevant, what is relevant and you are completely wrong about is that 1 person can make a difference. Of course 1 person can't fix the whole problem, but that is just a copout for 1 person to do nothing at all. You can for example sponsor a single child giving him access to food and education. This has a very minor cost for the average western guy, and has a huge impact on the live of the african child and his family, and yet very few people choose to help.

The cause is not irrelevant. You fallaciously compare Lou's active choicess to screw people he interacted with in person to starving Africans. Having an extra burger at BK has no bearing on the African situation since that burger wouldn't have gone to the Africans anyway. That's how our capitalist system functions. Everybody knows it isn't perfect.

You can't help everyone in the world. People are drawn to different things to help others. It's also dubious that the charities you are talking about always help. There is a lot to suggest that many of them are complicated by the politics of the region.

Not helping a particular cause is not comparable to causing the death of somebody just for a quick profit.

>Lou actually knew the people were douchebags yes, I would say causing douchebags harm is less of an integrity breach than letting innocent people die.

His partner was not a douche bag. And just because the competition was a douche bag, doesn't mean he is justified in killing him.

And once again, you aren't letting "innocent people die" just because you didn't donate to a specific charity. That is absurd. There is so much suffering in the world, that and individual can only give himself to certain things. There is nothing selfish about this, and certainly not comparable to what Lou did when he actively decided to hurt people. Even if people are indifferent to the suffering of some, it is still not comparable to actively causing that suffering.

Too bad you are getting btfo ITT too by ppl who understand film more than you huh?

I am? People are saying what I thought they would say. I have no problem with some of the different perspectives here.

Glorifying and shining a light on a harsh reality are two very different things.

Stealing is stealing whether u are stealing a bouncing jack or a farari. If u live in a world where everyone is ok with u stealing bouncing jacks and then u go steal a farari are u a sociopath?

If u live in a society where people are ok with u tricking your coworker into embaeassing themself in front of the boss and they lose their job and then u go and trick your coworker into getting shot does that make you a sociopath?

The point is both things are wrong but for some reason society is ok with one and nit the other. That is what the movie is trying to express

What Lou did was wrong but he is no more a sociopath than the people who allow this kind of behavior (albeit to a lesser extent) every single day

Repeating the copout that just because you can't help everyone means you might as well help noone doesn't make it true.

Surely there is a difference between not helping someone and actively hurting someone, but how big is the difference really? What if Lou used just a small amount of his earnings on saving 5 african lives, that would put him well ahead of the average american but I'm sure everyone would accept that either because of people's collective delusion that makes them feel good about themselves.

Lou's partner blackmailed Lou into giving him half the $50k earnings by threatening to go to the police if he didn't. He also agreed to the plan Lou had setup. How does this not make him a douchebag?

how old are you?

this is definitely a movie i'm glad i saw in my late 20s. it reminded me of both drive and the taxi driver. i think a lot of young men can somewhat relate to the characters, even if they would never go to those extremes.

for me i just really liked how cynical it was, it showed you how the real world works and didn't end up having the indian side-kick guy win the day at the end. incredibly refreshing. the soundtrack is really fucking good too.

solid 9/10

>Stealing is stealing whether u are stealing a bouncing jack or a farari. If u live in a world where everyone is ok with u stealing bouncing jacks and then u go steal a farari are u a sociopath?
Lou did more than steal. And no, not all stealing is the same. If a friend of mine "stole" a cigarette of mine and never told me, I wouldn't care as much as if he stole my car.

Lou did more than steal anyway. He cut the breaks to a car that killed somebody and got his partner killed by being reckless and didn't care.

>If u live in a society where people are ok with u tricking your coworker into embaeassing themself in front of the boss and they lose their job and then u go and trick your coworker into getting shot does that make you a sociopath?

Getting your partner shot or wherever like Lou did and feeling no remorse was part of what made him a sociopath. Getting a coworker to lose his job depends on the context, I guess. I'm not sure what your point is by trying to compare the two. Obviously a life is more important than a job.

>The point is both things are wrong but for some reason society is ok with one and nit the other. That is what the movie is trying to express

There are different degrees of wrong. I'm not sure why you don't understand this.

>What Lou did was wrong but he is no more a sociopath than the people who allow this kind of behavior (albeit to a lesser extent) every single day

Normal people don't "allow" this behavior, that's the point. Lou would have gone to prison if he was caught for the things he was doing.

>Repeating the copout that just because you can't help everyone means you might as well help noone doesn't make it true.
Don't even know what you mean here. Realistically you cannot help everyone in the world. And no, it isn't the same as helping no one at all.

>Surely there is a difference between not helping someone and actively hurting someone, but how big is the difference really? What if Lou used just a small amount of his earnings on saving 5 african lives, that would put him well ahead of the average american but I'm sure everyone would accept that either because of people's collective delusion that makes them feel good about themselves.

It's a huge difference. There's also a huge difference between attempting to help someone on the other side of the world, which won't solve any problems or even help at all, compared to, say, taking your bleeding friend to the hospital to save his life. The immediacy of the situation is relevant as well since you're in a direct position to actually make a difference.

>Lou's partner blackmailed Lou into giving him half the $50k earnings by threatening to go to the police if he didn't. He also agreed to the plan Lou had setup. How does this not make him a douchebag?

What his partner knew Lou was doing wasn't technically illegal, or it was at least a grey area. Lou was exploiting him the entire time and endangering his life but refused to compensate him more. This does not justify Lou getting him killed.

The point is if ur friend steals ur cig and u catch him you now realize u are dealing with someone who has the morality of a stealer. If he steals your car next it shouldn't come as a surprise. Because his past actions show he has no regard for the concept of private property. Just because you yourself chose to give him a pass for one thing and not the other doesn't mean that's how things ought to be appraised.

It doesn't glorify it. You're supposed to realise he's a psycho.

You have failed as a viewer, user.

>main character
>MUST ROOT FOR HIM
>HE GOOD HE GOOD
>HE WAT?
>he wat
>wut
>why
>dafuq
>...

>The point is if ur friend steals ur cig and u catch him you now realize u are dealing with someone who has the morality of a stealer. If he steals your car next it shouldn't come as a surprise. Because his past actions show he has no regard for the concept of private property. Just because you yourself chose to give him a pass for one thing and not the other doesn't mean that's how things ought to be appraised.

Not everybody who "steals" something small is going to steal something big, in fact I'd say most will not. People are more complicated than that.

My friend probably thought it was no big deal and that he'd get me back later. He could have just been intoxicated and considered it no big deal since the cigarette is very easily replaceable.

This is why the law has different degrees of crime, including misdemeanor vs felony and different levels of those as well. Not every crime gets the same sentencing because of this.

There is literally nothing wrong with being a sociopath and psychopath desu.

What is the best sociopath core movie?

>Don't even know what you mean here. Realistically you cannot help everyone in the world. And no, it isn't the same as helping no one at all.

My point is that most people don't donate anything at all. It's not that they aren't helping everyone, it's that they aren't helping anyone at all (outside their inner circle anyway). This literally proves that most people don't give a shit about people they don't know as they could help them tremendously only giving up a small amount of money, but choose not to. There is literally no way around this.

>It's a huge difference. There's also a huge difference between attempting to help someone on the other side of the world, which won't solve any problems or even help at all, compared to, say, taking your bleeding friend to the hospital to save his life. The immediacy of the situation is relevant as well since you're in a direct position to actually make a difference.

You keep talking like it's impossible to help africans or what does it matter anyway as you can't help everyone. All it is, is copouts, of course you can help, and helping 1 person obviously does matter even though you aren't helping everyone. It's impressive how everyone can delude themselves so easily to feel better even though the cognitive dissonance should be obvious.

>What his partner knew Lou was doing wasn't technically illegal, or it was at least a grey area. Lou was exploiting him the entire time and endangering his life but refused to compensate him more. This does not justify Lou getting him killed.

It is illegal to withhold information. The partner could also have tried to stop the whole thing when they got to the restaurant and the danger to the people inside became obvious, but he didn't as he wanted the money.

The law=\\= morality

People are judged by their actions and beliefs

The law judges by extent of crime.

Lou bloom commited no crimes (other than cutting the breaklines allegedly)

There is, a shitload.

>implying he was glorified

He was an immoral, slimy piece of shit who exploited the fuck out of his "intern" and did horrific things for a better shot at a job. Guess what, that's what is almost expected out of the 24/7 news cycle and the job market now, where society says you have to be a good person who is honest and kind, but expects you to cut everyone else for a job and do anything for a career. He's a sociopath who is rewarded at the end, just like how life works, but you're not exactly supposed to root for the guy.

Christ I hate this shithole of a board

Holy shit, what a fucking faggot you are

Let's keep welcoming all tourists, Sup Forums. Their presence and contributions are very important for the health of this board

>My point is that most people don't donate anything at all. It's not that they aren't helping everyone, it's that they aren't helping anyone at all (outside their inner circle anyway). This literally proves that most people don't give a shit about people they don't know as they could help them tremendously only giving up a small amount of money, but choose not to. There is literally no way around this.

They help their local communities the most in various ways because that's where most people have the greatest impact. It's not that people don't care about the suffering of someone thousands of miles a way, it's that there is little if anything at all that an average person can do to effectively make a difference the farther the problems gets from their locality.

>You keep talking like it's impossible to help africans or what does it matter anyway as you can't help everyone. All it is, is copouts, of course you can help, and helping 1 person obviously does matter even though you aren't helping everyone. It's impressive how everyone can delude themselves so easily to feel better even though the cognitive dissonance should be obvious.

People have different causes they want to dedicate themselves to. They want to feel like they're actually making a difference. Not everybody feels like they're making a difference by sending some money to a charity that claims it supposedly feeds them. People don't know what the situation is actually like the further removed from it, so it gives them doubt that they are actually making a difference.

It's not that a normal person wouldn't stop the suffering of Africans if they could, but they might feel powerless or ignorant of what they can actually accomplish.

>The law=\\= morality
the law is based on justice which is based on morality.

>People are judged by their actions and beliefs

>The law judges by extent of crime.
Which is judged by actions and beliefs (beliefs like premeditation).

>Lou bloom commited no crimes (other than cutting the breaklines allegedly)

Cutting the break lines and getting his partner killed with reckless driving are indeed crimes. It is implied he stole stuff at the beginning and might have incapacitated that officer.

He also lied to the police when he was being interviewed.

your a dorable

>It is illegal to withhold information. The partner could also have tried to stop the whole thing when they got to the restaurant and the danger to the people inside became obvious, but he didn't as he wanted the money.

I don't know the law well enough to know if what the partner did was illegal exactly. But I don't think there was anything the partner could have done to stop the shooting. It came about very quickly.

>They help their local communities the most in various ways because that's where most people have the greatest impact. It's not that people don't care about the suffering of someone thousands of miles a way, it's that there is little if anything at all that an average person can do to effectively make a difference the farther the problems gets from their locality.

Are you seriously implying that the majority do charity work? I would be surprised if the total percentage of people either doing charity work or donating to charities is higher than 20%, I think 10% is more like it.

And clearly your impact is greater when sending 1 hours salary to africa than doing 1 hour of charity work in the US, as most africans have it much worse than even the worst off americans and the purchasing power is just that much higher in africa.

It's not even the highlight of this movie?Why do faggots like you pull bullshit out of no where and argue with it as if you know what the fuck you are talking about?Just kys faggot holy shit

>Are you seriously implying that the majority do charity work? I would be surprised if the total percentage of people either doing charity work or donating to charities is higher than 20%, I think 10% is more like it.

You don't have to do charity work to help other people. Dedicating yourself to making art to make your community look beautiful might be a way somebody helps the community. Maybe spending all your time practicing to be a doctor so that you can some day save people's lives at your job is how you want to help your community. Normal people want to give back in one way or another, but they have their own ways of accomplishing this when they see a vacuum somewhere, something missing or a role for themselves to play.

>And clearly your impact is greater when sending 1 hours salary to africa than doing 1 hour of charity work in the US, as most africans have it much worse than even the worst off americans and the purchasing power is just that much higher in africa.

Again, people want to help others in different way. Normal people will have perfectly rational reasons why they don't want to give to this or that charity. It doesn't mean they don't want to help strangers. What they can do is perhaps much more limited than what Bill Gates can do. Maybe giving 1 hour's salary, which is a lot for many people, hamstrings them from practicing to be a doctor and prevents them from saving more lives one day.

I literally am Lou. Well, with a touch of Rust and even more of the Driver. Literally me. When I'm going after what I want, you don't wanna get in my way, kid. Trust me.

Doctors aren't doing anyone favors, they are providing a service for a fee. Working a normal job doesn't make people altruistic at all, that is for their own benefit. Giving without getting anything back is an altruistic act, something few people do. And come on, it's not like most western people can't spare a few dollars a month, even the poor have fucking iphones, people just don't give a shit, if they did they would donate, it is pretty simple. I realize you don't like that truth and neither do other "normal people" that's why you keep fooling yourself, but facts are facts.

>Doctors aren't doing anyone favors, they are providing a service for a fee. Working a normal job doesn't make people altruistic at all, that is for their own benefit. Giving without getting anything back is an altruistic act, something few people do. And come on, it's not like most western people can't spare a few dollars a month, even the poor have fucking iphones, people just don't give a shit, if they did they would donate, it is pretty simple. I realize you don't like that truth and neither do other "normal people" that's why you keep fooling yourself, but facts are facts.

No, this is what I truly believe. Just because an act isn't purely altruistic doesn't mean that it's purely selfish either. I think the social Darwinism you seem to be suggesting is highly autistic.

People are highly complex with competing motivations. Not everyone who wants to be a doctor is purely motivated by the wages. Even if you're after a well-paying job, part of that motivation can be wanting to be able to give more to charity once you secure it and help others in general.

How many little kids want to grow up to be firemen or, again, doctors because they think they'll make a lot of money? It's because they want to help people.

It's impossible to prove the motive for taking some job so it doesn't even make sense to talk about it. It is as a subjective argument you have to resort to because no real data supports your position. The cold hard fact is that most westernes have plenty of cash to spare but choose not to give anything to africans that live under horrible conditions, and doesn't do any charitable work either. The only reason for saying this person is altruistic is because you want it to be that way, because it certainly doesn't make any sense. Ignorance is a bliss as they say.

>doing shit with no repurcussions
>"I blame Scorsese"

have you actually watched any scorsese films or are you just an absolute retard?

Seriously, please tell me you're joking because you look like an idiot right now.

Lou did not kill his partner.

I already explained myself multiple times and gave a nuanced explanation that you seem incapable to understand. It's fine if you keep thinking your autism is objective and based on cold hard facts though, hopefully you'll grow up some day and decide to contribute something to society instead of thinking everyone is only in it for themselves.

Dream on, pleb.

In fact the law itself is based on the very principles that I've mentioned. Western governments (not including charities) donate billions to Africa every year. None of this is subjective. There would be no reason to do any of this or fight for justice or equality if people didn't believe in helping each other out.

Governments gives a tiny bit, much less than 1% of GDP, just enough so we can fool ourselves into thinking that we give a shit, but if we really did we would give much more.

Why would we need to fool ourselves into giving a shit if we didn't care at all? Why is nobody protesting the fact their tax money is going to these causes?

the law isn't build on altruistic principles, it is build to make for a safe and stabile society that benefits us all.

>benefits us all
lol

I never said anything about altruism. It's based on the principles of justice and fair and ethical treatment. We could just exterminate all criminals, but we don't.

>glorify

Why are Sup Forums tards so dumb? You love to project your delusional obsession with identity politics plus your victim complex onto everything you watch, such that a movie's "message" is whatever it portrays modified by whatever you currently wish to cry about.

It is a tiny amount which reflects that people doesn't give a shit. The question is rather why aren't all the supposedly altruistic people trying to raise the number.

The reason we try to fool ourselves is that we want to think of ourselves as a good person, that gives us confidence, a better sense of self worth. Acknowledging the fact that we easily could help africans that lives under shitty conditions by donating just a small amount is an uncomfortable thought, so we make up stupid excuses like well how can you know that the money gets to the africans anyway, and well I help people every day so I can have a clear conscience.

>The reason we try to fool ourselves is that we want to think of ourselves as a good person, that gives us confidence, a better sense of self worth.
>Acknowledging the fact that we easily could help africans that lives under shitty conditions by donating just a small amount is an uncomfortable thought, so we make up stupid excuses like well how can you know that the money gets to the africans anyway, and well I help people every day so I can have a clear conscience.

Now it's my turn: What you're saying is based on a subjective argument. The cold facts support my position that people actually do care.

>when you realize that most of the world actually believes that
:^|

I think he's probably got King of Comedy in mind. Not sure if anything else applies though.

because modern society is sick

How do people not know this?

>Wall-E is 8 years old

I think the Irony of OP's question is that this entire threads arguments answered it, without realizing it. It creates discussions, it puts a spotlight on certain pathologies and the very real existence they have, and how they influence our day to day life, or in some cases don't at all. Anti Social personalities range from low life criminals to presidents of nations. What's intimidating about the idea is that It's not that they're a unique and scary sub group of people, but that they're very well ingrained into society and make up nearly 1/100 people according to some estimates about the American population. If you have a whole auditorium of people watching a concert, say 1000 people, chances are statistically there are 10 individuals in that room with no capacity for remorse, empathy, or conscience.

And the meme is that I should be scared of that-statistical or not- reality.
Yeah, I don't do that. I must be one of these boogeymen myself then.

So using your logic even if the donations by the government is cut to a single dollar it still proves that people care because we give something, that's some poor logic. The tiny donations reflects the tiny amount people care. Sure it's not 0, but lets not forget that everyone pretends to care.

How do they act like normal people without getting caught though?