What's new
Frozen In Carbonite

Welcome to FIC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Polarisation is a Drug

Horton

Cat
Administrator

The Hunt, a satirical film in which liberals hunt Trump supporters and kill them for sport, was due to be released on 27 September.

Marketing of the film had already been put on hold following the El Paso and Dayton shootings.

Universal said the decision was made after "thoughtful consideration."

The Hunt's storyline is intended to reflect the divided nature of US politics.
:rolleyes:

America!
 

Lerticus

Senile Old Coot
Communism
Isn't that just a slightly more contemporary ripoff of The Purge? More surprised it wasn't directed by Dinesh D'Souza as a "documentary" conspiracy about Hillary leading a hunt of the people who voted against her.

Also, great Cossack laughter at Trumpy still getting triggered by being called a racist, despite his rhetoric being racist, a great deal of his supporters being racist, people committing mass shootings being both racist and Trumpy supporters... but calling the hateful white core of his base racist makes the accusers the real racists. Not even entirely sure if he was talking about the actual movie, or if he just used it to jump off onto another rant, like when he talked about how he will do more for gun control and went immediately to his racist immigration platform in the same sentence.
 

V4Guss

Well-known member
Author



:rolleyes:

America!
Expecting this film to get leaked at some point if it doesn't get released officially.
Isn't that just a slightly more contemporary ripoff of The Purge?
And The Purge made absolutely no sense because any government that would allow something like the purge would quickly find itself faced with uprising against the government and revolution even in the unlikely event you could get everyone in authority to go along with it.
 
Last edited:

Inquisitor Solarion

Active member
And The Purge made absolutely no sense because any government that would allow something like the purge would quickly find itself faced with uprising against the government and revolution even in the unlikely event you could get everyone in authority to go along with it.
More like, historically, the purge is something that happens when a revolutionary government comes to power. As with all things, it is never a good idea to be on the wrong side of the revolution when it finally ends.

A friend of mine told me his grandparents were officials in China in some province and when the Communists came to power, they high tailed out immediately, and for good reason. They were officials for the last government that just fell and knew that what came next is generally not a good thing for anyone who was supporting the defeated regime.
 

V4Guss

Well-known member
Author
More like, historically, the purge is something that happens when a revolutionary government comes to power. As with all things, it is never a good idea to be on the wrong side of the revolution when it finally ends.

A friend of mine told me his grandparents were officials in China in some province and when the Communists came to power, they high tailed out immediately, and for good reason. They were officials for the last government that just fell and knew that what came next is generally not a good thing for anyone who was supporting the defeated regime.
The Purge as presented in the films is a lot different than a mere change in government. It's literally presented as crime is legal up to a certain point (there's mention of a certain level of activity being unacceptable which probably means certain government workers and politicians are protected). Rape, murder, destruction of property... you name it's okay. Any government that would say "Hey, let's allow anarchy for one night. That sounds like a good idea!" is basically falling into Stupid Evil and isn't going to remain a government for long is my point. This isn't something that would ever be sustainable except for in fiction. You use China as an example and even in China there are people who fight back against the government there... or as you said just leave the country.

The TVTropes pages explains several of the economic problems of why The Purge would be a terrible idea (though it does note that the films establish that the government is basically lying about the effectiveness in universe):
TVtropes said:
Artistic License – Economics: The Purge is a horrible idea in real life for several reasons (though it should be noted that, in-universe, it is quite firmly established that the government are incredibly corrupt, evil and lying about its positive consequences, so this is arguably justified):
  • Because of the way the Purge works, the primary targets would primarily be the homeless, poor, and basically everyone working in the service industry. In other words, 80% of all employed and potential employees. This is also reflected in the stated one percent level of unemployment, which signifies a stagnating rather than booming economy. There would still be demand for employees, but very low supply, which drives wages up when businesses compete for employees, and then they are forced to raise prices of whatever they produce to pay these wages. Someone must have realized this (or read this page) when making the second film, because the unemployment number is bumped up to five percent. This is why killing poor people in general is an economically idiotic idea. It's also why full or near-full employment causes higher wages, as with fewer unemployed people existing workers can demand better pay and benefits without fear of being laid off (this last occurred around 1998-2001 in the US).
  • The elderly would be quite vulnerable, which in turn could have negative effects on their incentives to save. Why save your money, when someone could potentially knock you off before you enjoy retirement? On the other hand, the government would save a huge amount on retirement and medical care.
  • A night with no emergency services running would see infrastructure damage of catastrophic proportions. With no fire fighters, fires would rage out of control, consuming whole blocks at the very least. Damage to crucial utilities such as water and power would go unrepaired. Just consider the infrastructure damage caused by chaos following the overthrow of authoritarian regimes in Iraq (e.g. 2003 Baghdad looting) and Libya, for instance.
  • The movie focuses on violent crimes, ignoring all other forms of crime that would also be legal. Money laundering, bribery, insider trading, environment pollution, high treason, would all be perfectly legal until the dawn!
  • If businesses are free to conduct espionage and even sabotage one night every year, small businesses and new startups would be terrible investments.
  • And, as Alternate History Hub pointed out, insurance would be a nightmare.
Even if you didn't have this causing an uprising in the populace, there would be a huge economic crisis from the whole thing.
 
Last edited:

Lerticus

Senile Old Coot
Communism
I was actually sad to see The Hunt being scrapped, but I get it. US political scene is definitely not ready for satire.
It only counts as acceptable if it is conservatives hunting down the liberals and the lower class for kicks (again, The Purge). If the tables turn even a little bit it is suddenly an incitement to violence. Like how video games are supposedly inciting violence. Or calling racist racist is inciting racists to be violent racists.

But it is never time to do anything about gun violence, or to use satire in a way that might victimize imaginary conservatives. Fucking cowards.
 

Alcibiades

Active member
It only counts as acceptable if it is conservatives hunting down the liberals and the lower class for kicks (again, The Purge). If the tables turn even a little bit it is suddenly an incitement to violence. Like how video games are supposedly inciting violence. Or calling racist racist is inciting racists to be violent racists.
Well, The Purge is a liberal dystopia, marketed to liberals. (I think -- I haven't seen it.) I think this is probably satirizing liberals.
 

Alcibiades

Active member
From the trailers it looked to me more like an attack on the wealthy class, the 'elites' and their lack of sensitivity for the problems of the lower social classes.
Well, that's how conservatives tend to see liberals in the US. People out of touch with reality who have had sheltered lives.
 

Wakko

Well-known member
Well, that's how conservatives tend to see liberals in the US. People out of touch with reality who have had sheltered lives.
I see. It seems that the words 'conservative' and 'liberal' have a life of its own in the US, since as I understand them, they're not connected to wealth in any way. This has actually been bothering me for a long time now, since I'm definitely a liberal (a socially oriented liberal), but I don't identify with sooo many of the things the liberals in the US seem to identify with.
 

Inquisitor Solarion

Active member
I see. It seems that the words 'conservative' and 'liberal' have a life of its own in the US, since as I understand them, they're not connected to wealth in any way. This has actually been bothering me for a long time now, since I'm definitely a liberal (a socially oriented liberal), but I don't identify with sooo many of the things the liberals in the US seem to identify with.
Most of the rich fucks in America are libertarian/Randian (like Musk and Bezos and their ilk) or hard core conservative or both.

There are very few really progressive billionaires, and whether they are still "progressive" will be a question when they are asked to cough up money for the state coffers.
 

Ravan

Gone
Most of the rich fucks in America are libertarian/Randian (like Musk and Bezos and their ilk) or hard core conservative or both.

There are very few really progressive billionaires, and whether they are still "progressive" will be a question when they are asked to cough up money for the state coffers.
Ask Bill Gates or Warren Buffett. They’ve been saying for years that taxes on them are too low.
 

Lerticus

Senile Old Coot
Communism
Conservatism/liberalism in the US tends to reflect how people view the status quo.

Conservatives value keeping things the same, which means catering to the uninformed masses as well as promoting a system where everyone stays in their place. In many cases this means that the rich stay on top and get to control how everything works, because this is the way it has always been and change is bad.

Liberals in the US then become the boogeyman monsters that want to change everything and make it worse. The concept of liberals being sheltered comes from a jaded view of how the world works, that changes will always be bad and that believing that the changes could be good is some sort of derangement.

While it is possible to be liberal and wealthy, it is not so common since it means that those people have to go against their own financial interests and be responsible for the costs of making changes.

Which gets even more fucked up when conservatives talk about "the elites" as a derogatory term, Basically they imply that just because they want to stay in the past, and keep everyone else there with them, that means they are the "regular folk". The march of progress is supposedly just the oppression of people who think that they know better than what their pastor and racist grandpa taught them.
 
Last edited:

Inquisitor Solarion

Active member
Ask Bill Gates or Warren Buffett. They’ve been saying for years that taxes on them are too low.
What they say and do are two very different things.

Also, Buffet is a pox on the investment system. He knows the best way to earn a steady flow of cash is to invest in monopolies or companies which are dominant in their markets, and by doing so, he helps the process of stifling competition.


Now 87, Mr Buffett wields huge influence over US business and finance, usually positive. He pushed companies to expense stock options, warned of danger in derivatives and taught the public to invest long term in low-cost index funds. But however much you admire the man, his influence has a dark side because the beating heart of Buffettism, celebrated in a thousand investment books, is to avoid competition and minimise capital investment in the real economy.

...

Mr Buffett is completely honest about his desire to reduce competition. He just calls it by a folksy name — “widening the moat”. “I don’t want a business that’s easy for competitors. I want a business with a moat around it with a very valuable castle in the middle,” he said in 2007.

...

His concept of a moat is linked to his views on capital investment: the beauty of one is you do not need the other. One of his most celebrated purchases is See’s Candies, a company he bought for $25m in 1972. Every year, Mr Buffett raised prices. So strong was its brand that despite sales growing little, profits grew mightily, with barely any need for capital investment. “The ideal business is one that takes no capital, and yet grows,” he said last year.
 

Ravan

Gone
What they say and do are two very different things.

Also, Buffet is a pox on the investment system. He knows the best way to earn a steady flow of cash is to invest in monopolies or companies which are dominant in their markets, and by doing so, he helps the process of stifling competition.

So he’s good at Capitalism. Either you support what he’s doing, or you support getting rid of the system that makes monopoly the ultimate win condition. Take your pick. (I prefer option 2, but if you support Capitalism, then he’s done nothing wrong)
 

Alcibiades

Active member
Most of the rich fucks in America are libertarian/Randian (like Musk and Bezos and their ilk) or hard core conservative or both.

There are very few really progressive billionaires, and whether they are still "progressive" will be a question when they are asked to cough up money for the state coffers.
Certainly, but billionaires are the super-super elite, not the elite in general.

Conservatives value keeping things the same, which means catering to the uninformed masses as well as promoting a system where everyone stays in their place. In many cases this means that the rich stay on top and get to control how everything works, because this is the way it has always been and change is bad.
You're making quite a leap of logic from "value keeping things the same" to "catering to the uninformed masses as well as promoting a system etc." This is a liberal caracture of conservatives that can be dispelled by looking at/reading any of the conservative intelligentsia's output.

It's just demonization, and demonization is why US politics are f'd up/
 

D'waawwu

Well-known member
You're making quite a leap of logic from "value keeping things the same" to "catering to the uninformed masses as well as promoting a system etc." This is a liberal caracture of conservatives that can be dispelled by looking at/reading any of the conservative intelligentsia's output.

It's just demonization, and demonization is why US politics are f'd up/
Do you have anything to actually back this up?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kol

D'waawwu

Well-known member
Back what up? That it's a caracture of conservatives? You can read The American Conservative or The Weekly Standard yourself if you want. This isn't arcane knowledge.
And? What exactly am I supposed to find in American Conservative or The Weekly Standard that is supposed to convince me that what lerticus said is a caricature? Anyway in case anyone has not actually seen the trailer.
 

Top