SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB: Week 46 Discussion - They Live

[europe1]

Was she in that shit?

I actually just rewatched that movie a few years ago but I don't remember her.

Yeah she was. It was just a throwaway girlfriend-role so she wasn't very memorable. I was just trying to think of a movie where she doesn't betray anyone.

EDIT: And I was just being farcical when I said Best of the Best 2 didn't work.

 

[MusterX]

Good thoughts. I'll be interested in seeing you go deeper.

Considering how excited you seemed to watch it, I figured you'd have some pretty good shit stored up in your head for this one.

Moar!



Agreed. Epic!

Next thing I want to say is how crazy it is that Carpenter made this in 1988. I remember the 1980's vividly, I was old enough to drive cars, drink booze, and chase women so the 80's is not some vague recollection for me. Back in the 1980's there was no real social justice warriors, there was no alt-right, back then the alt-right was just the right and nationalism was encouraged. We said our pledge of allegiance, we chanted U.S.A., and anything not strongly nationalistic was considered bullshit.

The emerging world post 9/11/2001 stands in stark contrast to what came before it. It is amazing to me that this film points out, in its own bizarre way, what capitalist western society is built upon and how the root idea is to produce citizens that do not question authority, step in line, obey, produce, and consume. Even "This is Your God" is a reference to Mammon, or that money, material things, is our God. In the last decade or basically since 9/11 we have seen a certain small percentage of the populace have an awakening to this being our reality.

President Trump, strange to type that, even said it, "the system is rigged." One question for me is, does Carpenter understand the full impact of this silly film he made in the 1980's and did he know at the time that the system really is very much like the movie in many ways? Did Carpenter know what he was doing or did he just stumble upon a truth by accident?

So yea, Carpenter filmed this in the 80's and it depicts an awakening that would happen 15-30 years later, post 9/11. I can tell you its a shocker to wake up one day and start realizing that things are not at all as they seem and I've never talked to anyone who felt they had an awakening that didn't say it was like this...

It still goes deeper too, I just don't want these posts to get too long.

 

[Guestx]

Back in the 1980's there was no real social justice warriors, there was no alt-right, back then the alt-right was just the right and nationalism was encouraged. We said our pledge of allegiance, we chanted U.S.A., and anything not strongly nationalistic was considered bullshit.

As it should be.

One question for me is, does Carpenter understand the full impact of this silly film he made in the 1980's and did he know at the time that the system really is very much like the movie in many ways? Did Carpenter know what he was doing or did he just stumble upon a truth by accident?

That's a good question. It would be interesting to hear him talk more in depth about his motivation for telling this particular story.

So yea, Carpenter filmed this in the 80's and it depicts an awakening that would happen 15-30 years later, post 9/11. I can tell you its a shocker to wake up one day and start realizing that things are not at all as they seem and I've never talked to anyone who felt they had an awakening that didn't say it was like this...

So in what way exactly did this awakening happen for you? What did you believe about the world before, and then what did you believe after?

 

[MusterX]

As it should be.



That's a good question. It would be interesting to hear him talk more in depth about his motivation for telling this particular story.



So in what way exactly did this awakening happen for you? What did you believe about the world before, and then what did you believe after?

Getting ready to eat dinner but I'll be more than happy to respond when I get done.

 

[JayPettryMMA]

Going to see family tomorrow and will watch it with them tomorrow night. Should be fun.

 

[MusterX]

As it should be.



That's a good question. It would be interesting to hear him talk more in depth about his motivation for telling this particular story.



So in what way exactly did this awakening happen for you? What did you believe about the world before, and then what did you believe after?

Awakening sounds so cheesy but really there is no other way of viewing it. As I said before, prior to the internet and technological revolution we are currently experiencing and prior to the changes brought about by 9/11, the world was a entirely different place. It would be difficult to describe what it was like unless you experienced it which I think you've been around long enough to get where I'm coming from.

When I say awakening it means seeing things for how they are, not how you were taught they were. One of the first things that began to make me question our world was when I discovered the Bilderberg Group. This would have been around 1999-2000'ish by examining the work of a man named Jim Tucker. He made what I thought were crazy claims and so my investigations began. Shortly after that 9/11 happened and it just made me look even deeper into the world we know compared to the world that is.

So many things, I'll just list a few. Military worship really got to me when I realized how over the top it is in the United States. Even if you hate the war you support the troops mentality is one example of the military worship. We view soldiers as hero's and our media and government floods the air waves with that message. Soldiers are trained to not question anything, they are trained to follow orders. So we could theoretically have a terrible war where we commit terrible atrocities but our own people would support the troops and the troops will kill whoever they are told to kill. We have never even been in a war that wasn't contrived and sneaky. I wrote a long post about it here that describes how we were lied to on virtually every war we were ever involved in.
http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/p...arch-cia-report.3442179/page-7#post-125933999

Then you have guys like Bill Still who made an award winning documentary describing the history of banking called The Secret of Oz. The original version was over 3 hours, which I viewed all of but the condensed version called The Secret of Oz is only one hour and fifty minutes. You probably have no interest but you asked me what things occurred that changed my views.

Spoiler

So many things. The Patriot Act, the media being exposed as propaganda agents, this entire last election cycle, the discovery of how many globalists within our own government would actually want to cede our sovereignty, Walter Cronkite, round table groups and secret societies, MKULTRA, Operations Paperclip, Northwoods, Mockingbird, COINTELPRO, the C.I.A., in dozens of ways including running drugs, the N.W.O., Wikileaks, Edward Bernays, and this would just go on and on. It all contributed to seeing things in a different way. I kinda envy people who are oblivious to it.

 

[Guestx]

Awakening sounds so cheesy but really there is no other way of viewing it. As I said before, prior to the internet and technological revolution we are currently experiencing and prior to the changes brought about by 9/11, the world was a entirely different place. It would be difficult to describe what it was like unless you experienced it which I think you've been around long enough to get where I'm coming from.

When I say awakening it means seeing things for how they are, not how you were taught they were. One of the first things that began to make me question our world was when I discovered the Bilderberg Group. This would have been around 1999-2000'ish by examining the work of a man named Jim Tucker. He made what I thought were crazy claims and so my investigations began. Shortly after that 9/11 happened and it just made me look even deeper into the world we know compared to the world that is.

So many things, I'll just list a few. Military worship really got to me when I realized how over the top it is in the United States. Even if you hate the war you support the troops mentality is one example of the military worship. We view soldiers as hero's and our media and government floods the air waves with that message. Soldiers are trained to not question anything, they are trained to follow orders. So we could theoretically have a terrible war where we commit terrible atrocities but our own people would support the troops and the troops will kill whoever they are told to kill. We have never even been in a war that wasn't contrived and sneaky. I wrote a long post about it here that describes how we were lied to on virtually every war we were ever involved in.
http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/potwr-♕♕♕the-white-house♕♕♕-march-cia-report.3442179/page-7#post-125933999

Then you have guys like Bill Still who made an award winning documentary describing the history of banking called The Secret of Oz. The original version was over 3 hours, which I viewed all of but the condensed version called The Secret of Oz is only one hour and fifty minutes. You probably have no interest but you asked me what things occurred that changed my views.

Spoiler

So many things. The Patriot Act, the media being exposed as propaganda agents, this entire last election cycle, the discovery of how many globalists within our own government would actually want to cede our sovereignty, Walter Cronkite, round table groups and secret societies, MKULTRA, Operations Paperclip, Northwoods, Mockingbird, COINTELPRO, the C.I.A., in dozens of ways including running drugs, the N.W.O., Wikileaks, Edward Bernays, and this would just go on and on. It all contributed to seeing things in a different way. I kinda envy people who are oblivious to it.

Indeed. Thanks for your perspective.

I think that, for me, encountering these revelations were not quite as impactful for one primary reason: I had been prepared for them by my stepdad. I eventually realized that my adolescence was not quite like a lot of other kids', largely because during my formative years--my early teens, specifically--I spent a lot of time with my stepdad, who would talk a lot to me about things like police abusing their authority, governmental corruption, Waco and Ruby Ridge, etc. Basically from the ages of 12 to about the age of 15 I was plied with a lot of anti-government rhetoric.

I'd say the next big thing was seeing the documentary The Weather Underground. Have you ever seen it? If not, you should. It really opened my eyes to the the resistance movement during the 60s and helped me to understand that there are a lot of different ways to look at things. And it's also the first time I ever heard about COINTELPRO.

So all that is to say that, when shit like the PATRIOT Act when into effect, or when I learned about MKULTRA, or when I hear about all these new revelations about the government spying on their own people, it never had the effect on me that it might for some other people because I was raised more or less from childhood to believe that the government is all about shit like that. For me, it was just confirmation that my stepdad was right and all the indoctrination I received from him was not in vain.

I'll have to check out that Secret of Oz documentary as well as your thread.

My biggest issue now with trying to get information is something we've talked about before: How do you know what to trust? For instance, if you watch a documentary, how do you know the information is being presented honestly and accurately? Or if you read a book, you face the same questions. Is the information accurate? Is it being spun to serve some agenda? Is there information being left out that could change the tone and color of this conversation?

THAT is really what makes studying these kinds of subjects such a clusterfuck.

 

[MusterX]

Indeed. Thanks for your perspective.

I think that, for me, encountering these revelations were not quite as impactful for one primary reason: I had been prepared for them by my stepdad. I eventually realized that my adolescence was not quite like a lot of other kids', largely because during my formative years--my early teens, specifically--I spent a lot of time with my stepdad, who would talk a lot to me about things like police abusing their authority, governmental corruption, Waco and Ruby Ridge, etc. Basically from the ages of 12 to about the age of 15 I was plied with a lot of anti-government rhetoric.

I'd say the next big thing was seeing the documentary The Weather Underground. Have you ever seen it? If not, you should. It really opened my eyes to the the resistance movement during the 60s and helped me to understand that there are a lot of different ways to look at things. And it's also the first time I ever heard about COINTELPRO.

So all that is to say that, when shit like the PATRIOT Act when into effect, or when I learned about MKULTRA, or when I hear about all these new revelations about the government spying on their own people, it never had the effect on me that it might for some other people because I was raised more or less from childhood to believe that the government is all about shit like that. For me, it was just confirmation that my stepdad was right and all the indoctrination I received from him was not in vain.

I'll have to check out that Secret of Oz documentary as well as your thread.

My biggest issue now with trying to get information is something we've talked about before: How do you know what to trust? For instance, if you watch a documentary, how do you know the information is being presented honestly and accurately? Or if you read a book, you face the same questions. Is the information accurate? Is it being spun to serve some agenda? Is there information being left out that could change the tone and color of this conversation?

THAT is really what makes studying these kinds of subjects such a clusterfuck.

Well for one thing when I recommend something its generally something that has been vetted pretty well. For example, if I recommend Bill Still's The Secret of Oz its because I already viewed it and studied it myself, and because others have also done the same. The Secret of Oz was voted one of the best documentaries of 2010. You may not agree with Bill Still's personal worldview but his presentation is legit. You almost certainly will learn about the banking system and view it differently if you watch that. The bankers are as powerful a group as you can name, government, secret society, doesn't matter, the bankers are right up there, maybe at the apex.

Depends on what I'm watching and who is presenting it but generally if I see something that seems unbelievable then I pursue proof of it. I also don't pursue the way out CT's like reptilians, flat earth, etc. There is a place for reptiles if we are discussing things of a spiritual nature. Satan after all was probably the original reptilian. Interesting to note that the villains in They Live looked reptilian. They are just listed as "non-human" aliens but what exactly they are is hard to say. Extrateresstrial, Interdimensional, demons, who knows. The subliminal that says, "This is Your God" is a direct reference to Mammon or the love of money, greed, material things. So there is kinda that underlying hint at biblical stuff, reptiles and Mammon.

 

[GORETAURO]

It has a great commentary
I think the movie was like #1 for 2 weeks then out of the theaters.

 

[Guestx]

Well for one thing when I recommend something its generally something that has been vetted pretty well. For example, if I recommend Bill Still's The Secret of Oz its because I already viewed it and studied it myself, and because others have also done the same. The Secret of Oz was voted one of the best documentaries of 2010. You may not agree with Bill Still's personal worldview but his presentation is legit. You almost certainly will learn about the banking system and view it differently if you watch that. The bankers are as powerful a group as you can name, government, secret society, doesn't matter, the bankers are right up there, maybe at the apex.

Well I'll have to check it out.

Since we're on the subject of CT docs, I'm sure you've seen Zeitgeist. It is much too famous for you not to have . . . or perhaps I should say infamous.

Thoughts on it?

 

[ultimateriley-o]

I hope I'm not offending anybody by posting without being a member with a coveted seat in this shadow society, but I rewatched They Live just recently for the first time in quite a few years and was actually surprised at how much I didn't love it.

Obviously the film is not without its positives; the premise itself is fantastic, the cast is very strong and they fit their roles excellently (casting being in my opinion one of Carpenter's biggest, and most overlooked strengths), and there are wonderful moments throughout. However, it felt to me that once the premise was established and characters were introduced, the plot itself didn't offer much in terms of interest, let alone ingenuity. What I felt I had at the end were good characters largely wasted on not many ideas beyond the original premise. I would of course be remise if I didn't mention that I could watch the entire fight scene from this movie weekly and never get sick of it.

In the end it feels like a film that's worse than the sum of its parts; not terrible and not even bad as such, just underwhelming. 6.5/10

 

[Guestx]

I hope I'm not offending anybody by posting without being a member with a coveted seat in this shadow society. . .

Within these walls, there is nothing for you to find but disdain and prejudice.

Obviously the film is not without its positives; the premise itself is fantastic, the cast is very strong and they fit their roles excellently (casting being in my opinion one of Carpenter's biggest, and most overlooked strengths), and there are wonderful moments throughout. However, it felt to me that once the premise was established and characters were introduced, the plot itself didn't offer much in terms of interest, let alone ingenuity. What I felt I had at the end were good characters largely wasted on not many ideas beyond the original premise. I would of course be remise if I didn't mention that I could watch the entire fight scene from this movie weekly and never get sick of it.

In the end it feels like a film that's worse than the sum of its parts; not terrible and not even bad as such, just underwhelming. 6.5/10

Out of curiosity, do you have any natural interesting in politics or conspiracy theories?

 

[Guestx]

Fix'd

I can't really disagree with you. While looking through her pics I realized she was in Masters of the Universe and it made me wonder if I need to rewatch that shit.

 

[ultimateriley-o]

Out of curiosity, do you have any natural interesting in politics or conspiracy theories?

Politics, definitely, and the Reagan era as a precursor to today's US situation in particular, which was part of why I found the original premise so intriguing.

As for conspiracy theories, I have a general disdain for them in real life, but get great enjoyment from them in film.

Again, it wasn't the premise of the film itself that didn't work for me; in fact, quite the contrary. It was the underwhelming follow-through for such a great premise that fell flat for me.

 

[europe1]

I think this opening scene is an interesting personal tick of John Carpenter. He's a guy who has stated that he went into filmmaking to make Westerns. He grew up watching Westerns -- many of his favorite films are Westerns (like the amazing Rio Bravo). Part of that influence is his love for widescreen-cameras, which traditionally have been used to film landscapes and other "epic" scenery, but Carpenter adopted it for the horror/sci-fi genre.

This opening scene though, is a Western-staple. You have the hero wandering into the city alone (all that's missing is the horse) from a seemingly desolate landscape. He's an outsider -- with no prior relation to the city, and his arrival will fix what is wrong. The music that's playing is also Western-like with the soft guitar music (no idea how to describe music, sorry). It's a classical Western set-up.

The early exhanges between Nada and Keith David I think says a lot about the films theme.

Piper has this to say. "I just do some hard work and the chance will come. I belive in America. I follow the rules. Everybody get their own hard times these days."

Here he's expunging the classical "American-Dream". You work hard, stay straight, and eventually, your chance for prosperity will come. Nada thinks that his individual efforts will bring about goodness in the world.

As the premise of the film reveals though, that that's impossible. The system is rigged. Our entire civilization is being run by ghoul-looking aliens (obviously a stand-in for the establishment). You can't "work-hard and achieve your dreams" because the system is set-up to exploit you. It's not some sort of fair, meritorious competition. You "working hard and playing by the rules" will only serve to enrich the system, not benefit yourself or your peers.

There is a delightful bit of subtext to this fight (which is just as hilarious as everyone has stated).

Earlier in the film, Keith David had expunged the ideology that life is a battle for survival. We all have to fight like wolves for the meger scraps that are offered to us. This is his mindset -- survival through competition.

Think about it, the reasons for the battle are absurd. All Keith had to do to make Piper stop harassing him is to put on the damn glasses! That entire sequence could have been resolved in a matter of seconds.

Basically, I think the fight is a metaphor for how hard it is to make some people alert to societal issues. People want to bury their head in the sand. Especially those like David, who see themselves as being only out to save themselves, people that are diehard individualists and refuse to look at societal issues. They refuse to see structures, trends, communal issues that affect everyone -- only focusing on their own survival.

Of course, the problem with only focusing on your own survival is that it doesn't solve issues. And said issues will exasperate until they reach a boiling point.

Maybe it's emotionally easier to have a narrow-focus, not care about more overarching stuff that goes on above your head. By only caring about yourself, you make your mindset very easy, and thus don't have to deal with the complexities of such issues.

 

[europe1]

And if you resist, they send out their army--the police force--in jack boots and riot gear to force compliance. Notice how in the film the police are almost always portrayed militaristically.

It's also interesting that some of the aliens dialogue seems to mirror that of police profiling.When the aliens in the grocery store first realize that Piper can see them, the one that reports on him says this. "He's a tall caucasian male. He wears sunglasses. He doesn't appear armed".

That sort of lingo is very police-like. It doesn't mirror the way an everyday person would describe it, none of the nervousness or stuttering. It's very technical, very precise.

These are their messages to us, as the "sleeping middle class" is dismantled in order to create a sharp divide between those at the top and everyone else, so that all the power is concentrated in the hands of the ruling class.

While the "sleeping middle class" analogy is pretty relevant for this film, I don't really think that's what the film is pointing out. The exploited one's are squarely working-class people. Keith David was a steel-mill worker before the plant closed down. Piper was in construction in Denver for 10 years. The middle class people of the film are either aliens or people that live in complete oblivion to the aliens existence. The revolution springs from the exploited working class, not the middle one.

Even "This is Your God" is a reference to Mammon,

Well... I don't think it's a direct reference to the biblical concept of Mammon, squarely because Carpenter isn't excactly the most religious guy around so it'll be weird for him to have that in mind when he made the film. Nor does the film deal with religion outside the whole "money is god" angle. If anything, the heart of the film is more with the socio-economically downtrodden than any Christian concepts.

Back in the 1980's there was no real social justice warriors, there was no alt-right, back then the alt-right was just the right and nationalism was encouraged. We said our pledge of allegiance, we chanted U.S.A., and anything not strongly nationalistic was considered bullshit.

That's an interesting statement to make since Carpenter has stated that he explicitly made the film as a criticism of 80's conservatism and Reganism. Now, Carpenter explicitly singles out unrestrained capitalism as his ire with that conservative movement -- but considering his rather leftist leaning I rather doubt that Carpenter saw nationalism as the cure for these ailments.

President Trump, strange to type that, even said it, "the system is rigged."

Well he said that in relation to the election, that the system is rigged. I think that the very fact that he won indicates that the system isn't as totally rigged as he made it out to be.

I can't really disagree with you. While looking through her pics I realized she was in Masters of the Universe and it made me wonder if I need to rewatch that shit.

She and the guy that played Skelator are the only true bright-spots of the film.

In terms of his performance, I thought that Roddy Piper did well. He's no Daniel Day Lewis, and his line delivery could use some work, but he has charm and charisma and he handled the physical components pretty much perfectly. I liked how the film starts out with him just walking around looking TST and bad ass. I also felt like Keith David was perfect for his role. That voice he's got really is something special. And lastly, Meg Foster was great,

(casting being in my opinion one of Carpenter's biggest, and most overlooked strengths)

I think that Carpenter just has a real good grasp of character actors. He knows how to tailor his movie around them. That makes everything feel very organic. Hell, everyone in The Thing excluding Kurt Russell is an character actor, and you just instantly know everything that you need to know about those characters by their mannerisms and way of carrying themselves.

Piper is a great example of that. He hired Piper because he thought that Piper had "lived-life". That is to say, he had a "lived-in" quality about himself. The character of Nada is basically exploiting that natural side of Piper. Therefore, Carpenter manages to make the performance feel very real and natural. He managed to make Piper approach the role like an character actor would.

However, it felt to me that once the premise was established and characters were introduced, the plot itself didn't offer much in terms of interest, let alone ingenuity. What I felt I had at the end were good characters largely wasted on not many ideas beyond the original premise

Well I think that can be boiled down to two factors.

Firstly, the message of the movie is really overt. There ain't no subtlety at all here. Carpenter just lays out the premise so blatantly that it's impossible to miss. That makes sure that everyone in the audience gets it -- but it doesn't really leave you a lot of material to play with. Another director would have made the message more subtle and gradual, slowly introducing it and letting it dawn in the characters and audiences mind.

Secondly, Carpenter really is a genre-director. This is a political movie, but it plays out like an action film. Nada and Keith David are supposed to be ordinary joe's, but they can still gun down every alien that crosses their path. Once the premise is introduced -- the genre aspects take over. It becomes an action film. That sort of prevents the film from focusing "deeper" on any political statements that could be had.

As for conspiracy theories, I have a general disdain for them in real life

I think that most -- if not all -- of the things that people try to explain through conspiracy theories is in fact just good-old political corruption, bribery, plain incompetence from our leaders and/or an result of them not being able to think long-term at all with their political decisions.

 

[Guestx]

It's also interesting that some of the aliens dialogue seems to mirror that of police profiling.When the aliens in the grocery store first realize that Piper can see them, the one that reports on him says this. "He's a tall caucasian male. He wears sunglasses. He doesn't appear armed".

That sort of lingo is very police-like. It doesn't mirror the way an everyday person would describe it, none of the nervousness or stuttering. It's very technical, very precise.

Interesting observation.

While the "sleeping middle class" analogy is pretty relevant for this film, I don't really think that's what the film is pointing out. The exploited one's are squarely working-class people. Keith David was a steel-mill worker before the plant closed down. Piper was in counstruction in Denver for 10 years. The middle class people of the film are either aliens or people that live in complete oblivion to the aliens existence. The revolution springs from the exploited working class, not the middle one.

Well my mention of the "sleeping middle class" comes directly from the film, hence the quotation marks. There's a line where one of the characters says the aliens' goal is to "dismantle the sleeping middle class" so that there's nothing left but the rich and the poor.

However, I wasn't saying that our heroes were part of that middle class. They clearly had already either been dismantled, so to speak, or were never part of the middle class to begin with.

Nor does the film deal with religion outside the whole "money is god" angle. If anything, the heart of the film is more with the socio-economically downtrodden than any Christian concepts.

If you remember, the resistance was headquartered in a Church and its leader--the guy who was apparently writing the speeches that they were broadcasting over the airwaves, hence we see him mouthing the words as he listens--was a pastor.

I don't feel like there was a strong theological message here, but there was more of a religious element than you're giving it credit for.

Well he said that in relation to the election, that the system is rigged. I think that the very fact that he won indicates that the system isn't as totally rigged as he made it out to be.

Well there's no question that much of the political system is designed for only certain kinds of people to get elected.

She and the guy that played Skelator are the only true bright-spots of the film.

Dolph is always a bright spot, regardless of what he's doing.

I think that most -- if not all -- of the things that people try to explain through conspiracy theories is in fact just good-old political corruption, bribery, plain incompetence from our leaders and/or an result of them not being able to think long-term at all with their political decisions.

Well you have to remember what a conspiracy is. A conspiracy is simply people colluding to make something happen, usually in secret. Conspiracies are all around us and we've all participated in them at one time or another.

Regarding government conspiracies, I mentioned earlier several that were proven to be true: MKUltra, COINTELPRO, the sinking of the Lusitania, the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, etc. So there's no doubt that governments the world over have acted conspiratorially and will continue to do so into the future.

The only question is in what ways, precisely, are they conspiring? And for what reasons?

 

[europe1]

Dolph is always a bright spot, regardless of what he's doing.

I try to tell myself that. I really do. I even rewatch Rocky IV in hopes that he will one day win. No luck so far.

Well my mention of the "sleeping middle class" comes directly from the film, hence the quotation marks. There's a line where one of the characters says the aliens' goal is to "dismantle the sleeping middle class" so that there's nothing left but the rich and the poor.

However, I wasn't saying that our heroes were part of that middle class. They clearly had already either been dismantled, so to speak, or were never part of the middle class to begin with.



If you remember, the resistance was headquartered in a Church and its leader--the guy who was apparently writing the speeches that they were broadcasting over the airwaves, hence we see him mouthing the words as he listens--was a pastor.

I don't feel like there was a strong theological message here, but there was more of a religious element than you're giving it credit for.

Yeah I meant to imply theological. Sloppy word pick on my part.

I haven't actually rewatched the film yet -- just looked up certain scenes to refresh certain details and quotes. So my commentary is a bit wonkey.

 

[ultimateriley-o]

Regarding government conspiracies, I mentioned earlier several that were proven to be true: MKUltra, COINTELPRO, the sinking of the Lusitania, the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, etc. So there's no doubt that governments the world over have acted conspiratorially and will continue to do so into the future.

The only question is in what ways, precisely, are they conspiring? And for what reasons?

Many things get painted with the "conspiracy theory" brush and end up being marked as valid (or invalid) simply by association with the term. I often think that one might benefit from thinking of them as social or political hypotheses, and be very wary of claiming them to be true or even probably without some serious evidence to back the claim.

Now, of course there have been actual, legitimate plots that were conceived and took place, and people who had theories that there were conspiracies that took place were proven right. Those hypotheses mentioned that did indeed turn out to be true were based on sound evidence that wasn't roundly disproved repeatedly, but people don't look at it that way. They see that a few conspiracy theories were true, therefore it must follow that there's a good chance that all hypotheses are true ! So when the Eddie Bravos of the world point to Gulf of Tonkin being an actual thing to justify claims of fuckin Pizzagate or whatever, it drives me absolutely fucking bonkers. The claim has to stand on its own evidence or it's no good.

 

[Guestx]

Many things get painted with the "conspiracy theory" brush and end up being marked as valid (or invalid) simply by association with the term. I often think that one might benefit from thinking of them as social or political hypotheses, and be very wary of claiming them to be true or even probably without some serious evidence to back the claim.

Now, of course there have been actual, legitimate plots that were conceived and took place, and people who had theories that there were conspiracies that took place were proven right. Those hypotheses mentioned that did indeed turn out to be true were based on sound evidence that wasn't roundly disproved repeatedly, but people don't look at it that way. They see that a few conspiracy theories were true, therefore it must follow that there's a good chance that all hypotheses are true ! So when the Eddie Bravos of the world point to Gulf of Tonkin being an actual thing to justify claims of fuckin Pizzagate or whatever, it drives me absolutely fucking bonkers. The claim has to stand on its own evidence or it's no good.

I don't disagree.

I think the very word "conspiracy," and by extension "conspiracy theory," is so loaded that it can often derail any productive conversation. To a lot of people, just the word "conspiracy" means some far-right wacky idea, even though as I said before conspiracies are all around us and we have all participated in them.

Regarding evidence, yes, we definitely do have enough evidence NOW to prove the big conspiracies that are known to all. But of course they didn't start that way.

They started with, perhaps, a leaked document or a whistleblower with an unverified story or something else to that effect, rather than the whole story laid out like Thanksgiving dinner. I don't know exactly how we learned that MKUltra, for instance, was a real program, but I do know that it had to sound like the craziest shit at first. Just a wild fucking story.

Of course I do agree that we should insist on proper evidence before we just BELIEVE anything, but at the same time, I don't think we should refuse to listen to someone's idea just because all the evidence is not yet in place.