New Zeitgeist movie: "Moving Forward"

[Tanner]

In before people who wear pants on their head.

But seriously, this is a controversial but legitimate documentary and those who give it even a passing nod of approval should post so here so that the rest of us can be aware of you. And give you cake.

[scythe]

Taking the "documentary has no objective characteristics" tack, are we?

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I tried watching it just now, reached the 40 minute mark, and now I can't go on. The whole sumbitch is 160 minutes, and 40 of them were just spent kicking the same dead horse. For 40 minutes. It probably goes on; I don't know, and I'm really not very interested in knowing.
Their main (or really only) point in that first segment appears to be that environmental factors influence behavior and that capitalism is individualistic. Has anyone in their right minds ever argued against these things? The only thing they've done is take down legions of strawmen.

[SlappyMcGee]

I'm really impressed by the original Zeitgeist film; wait to read rest of post before judging.

It's a bit like where Republicans got known as stupid so the Democrats became "elitist". I find the marketing or at least the intention of the first movie was in a similar vein. The movie accepts that it's theories are ridiculous and based on no fact, so it kind of presses that conspiracy impulse in the human brain. It tells you, the narrow minded rube who does not like reading books, that you aren't narrow minded, but instead those books you skip out on because of tl;dr are filled with the information /they/ want you to know.

summarize: awful.

[Brocerius]

It tells you, the narrow minded rube who does not like reading books, that you aren't narrow minded, but instead those books you skip out on because of tl;dr are filled with the information /they/ want you to know.

summarize: awful.

I think that's unfair. There a lot of bad things to say about the Zeitgeist Movies (the first one in particular -- I think they have improved drastically), but one good thing they do do is encourage people to learn about some of the more important but often overlooked memes in our world.

What books would you recommend that cover this same ground?

And as to "it's theories are ridiculous and based on no fact", that simply isn't true. Sure, there are buckets of lies thrown in there, but there are also some truths hidden between the lines. And I think there are important truths there.

For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Chri ... _mythology



I particularly liked Moving Forward (apart from that fucking awful ending). I think it presented some important ideas, and covered ground that is normally avoided.

I would encourage anyone capable of separating truth from fantasy to watch these three films. In fact, I regularly do.

[Tanner]

To defend Zeitgeist on the basis of it having some truths thrown in with the lies is to defend a bucket of poison on the basis of it having delicious brown chucks mixed in.

[Brocerius]

To defend Zeitgeist on the basis of it having some truths thrown in with the lies is to defend a bucket of poison on the basis of it having delicious brown chucks mixed in.

Not really. These truths are special. It's like finding diamonds in a dungheap.

[SlappyMcGee]

You're an idiot.

First of all, your so-called ability to detect the bullshit from the factual bits; it simply doesn't exist because if it did, you would not waste your fucking time with these tripe films. The first film has one reasonable proof in the lot of it, and that's that Peter Joseph is a tool and nobody should care what he thinks about anything. The second film is, "Hey, I'm Peter Joseph and this is what I think about things."

Second of all, finding diamonds in a fucking dungheap or whatever twat metaphor that is -- there are no diamonds floating about in most dungheaps. When you encounter a dungheap, your instinct should not be LET'S GO AND LOOK FOR DIAMONDS. Your instinct should be I'mma go ahead and avoid the fuck out of a dungheap and if I want diamonds, I'll head down to the fucking mall.

But enough about your bullshit fucking metaphor, because it gets better; why the fuck do you want to find shit covered diamonds in the first place? Have you heard of things called Documentaries? (Hyperbole; I know you haven't.) It turns out that legitimate filmmakers (re: not Peter fucking Joseph) make movies all the time that are entirely factual; it's like finding diamonds in a large stack of diamonds. What's more, their films are actually made using things like "research" and "film techniques" so the quality of the whole product is much higher.

Third of all, and this is the worst fucking thing, the movies aren't even consistently logical within their entire dungheap paradigm; film 1 was a bit about how Jesus didn't exist, but then it was about how the government orchestrated 9/11 (okay so maybe it was to convince us that Jesus exists?) and part fucking three was about how income taxes are unconstitutional. Then he made two more fucking films about how broken Wall Street is and how we need to rebel against it and provoke social change. Change into what, you fucking cunt? Deregulation and the self-propelling flow of free market proponents who either get rich on Wall Street or go back to University to teach more people how great a free market is are exactly what caused this whole fucking mess, and you're going to argue that income taxes are unconstitutional (Even if he's right, fuck your constitution; the founding fathers didn't know dick all) and that the only way we can fix our world is to stop believing in Jesus, use more buzz words like "emergence" and "symbiosis" and to finally put Bush in jail for his single-handed involvement in the events of 9/11.

This is the kind of zany shit that I expect from forum users who don't know what the fuck zeitgeist means, the kind who latch on to the first Wikipedia page they stumble unto and argue fervently for pages about how clear it is that Marx was wrong and that WE NEED LOWER TAXES but fuck right off when one of these forumers gets a camera and a following.

Anyway, the fact that you ask me what books I'd recommend that cover the same ground is dumbfounding; what ground was covered? I could write a 1000 page treatise on how the economy is broken and how the Presidency is actually run by a splinter group of androids known only as the La-Li-Lu-Le-Lo. It doesn't mean shit; these movies don't cover any ground. The wallow about in an idiot's head, and he knows enough about iMovie that you start to think "Hey, this brain don't look half bad from the inside!"

[Slayr]

^ Win.
I tried watching the second one about a month ago but ended up falling asleep 15(?) minutes in. I found the whole Jesus thing interesting in the first movie though.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I could write a 1000 page treatise on how... the Presidency is actually run by a splinter group of androids known only as the La-Li-Lu-Le-Lo.

This is idiotic.
They are called Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday.

[yahoozy]

I could write a 1000 page treatise on how... the Presidency is actually run by a splinter group of androids known only as the La-Li-Lu-Le-Lo.

This is idiotic.
They are called Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday.

This is not another codename for the Patriots or the La-Li-Lu-Le-Lo. You are wrong.

[Brocerius]

What's with all the personal attacks, jesus. Just because you can say 'fuck' every second word doesn't mean you should. And you keep calling me ignorant. How am I meant to respond to that?

what ground was covered?

I think the first film was an interesting introduction to questions about the origins of Christianity, and indeed to faith as an almost ubiquitous human phenomenon. These questions need to be answered -- and lacking a materialist explanation for these phenomenon many people are tempted to employ magical thinking. I didn't care for the second part.

The last part of the first film addresses poorly problems that are better discussed later in the series. It does tend towards the illuminati/zionists end of the crazed conspiracy spectrum.

I think the third film was a much more mature and educated handling of this same material. It focuses on some common misconceptions in popular understanding of science, and upon this framework builds an interesting and informative opinion on the state of the world and the possibilities for change.

My opinions on the subject are not very strong. I think perhaps the raging hatred you felt for the film may parallel the offence you think it did you.

[Kablizzy]

What's with all the personal attacks, jesus. Just because you can say 'fuck' every second word doesn't mean you should. And you keep calling me ignorant. How am I meant to respond to that?

They probably expect you to respond ignorantly. I mean, fuck, man.

[Tanner]

You're showing such a remarkable level of cognitive dissonance when discussing these movies, Brocerius, which is why you're getting a lot of ad hominem. Basically, we're not responding to you, we're responding at you... so the answer to your question would probably be something like "you're not".

[SlappyMcGee]

I don't hate you. I think you're an idiot. But I don't want to be accused of hating somebody, or of limiting my audience. Allow me to cover the same ground without the "fucks" and "cunts" that are my usual trade.
My Post: Addendum
You're a dummy.

First of all, your so-called ability to detect the pants-on-fire from the factual bits; it simply doesn't exist because if it did, you would not waste your valuable time with these bad films. The first film has one reasonable proof in the lot of it, and that's that Peter Joseph is a lame guy and nobody should care what he thinks about anything. The second film is, "Hey, I'm Peter Joseph and this is what I think about things."

Second of all, finding diamonds in a smelly dungheap or whatever terrible metaphor that is -- there are no diamonds floating about in most dungheaps. When you encounter a dungheap, your instinct should not be LET'S GO AND LOOK FOR DIAMONDS. Your instinct should be I'mma go ahead and avoid the heck out of a dungheap and if I want diamonds, I'll head down to the popular and busy mall.

But enough about your silly emphasized metaphor, because it gets better; why in the name of our Lord do you want to find poop covered diamonds in the first place? Have you heard of things called Documentaries? (Hyperbole; I know you haven't.) It turns out that legitimate filmmakers (re: not Peter MiddleName Joseph) make movies all the time that are entirely factual; it's like finding diamonds in a large stack of diamonds. What's more, their films are actually made using things like "research" and "film techniques" so the quality of the whole product is much higher.

Third of all, and this is the worst dang thing, the movies aren't even consistently logical within their entire dungheap paradigm; film 1 was a bit about how Jesus didn't exist, but then it was about how the government orchestrated 9/11 (okay so maybe it was to convince us that Jesus exists?) and part the third was about how income taxes are unconstitutional. Then he made two more boring films about how broken Wall Street is and how we need to rebel against it and provoke social change. Change into what, you overreaching theorist? Deregulation and the self-propelling flow of free market proponents who either get rich on Wall Street or go back to University to teach more people how great a free market is are exactly what caused this whole confusing mess, and you're going to argue that income taxes are unconstitutional (Even if he's right, rewrite your constitution; the founding fathers didn't know much about the future) and that the only way we can fix our world is to stop believing in Jesus, use more buzz words like "emergence" and "symbiosis" and to finally put Bush in jail for his single-handed involvement in the events of 9/11.

This is the kind of zany stuff that I expect from forum users who don't know what the word zeitgeist means, the kind who latch on to the first Wikipedia page they stumble unto and argue fervently for pages about how clear it is that Marx was wrong and that WE NEED LOWER TAXES but please go away when one of these forumers gets a camera and a following. (BUT OBVIOUSLY NOT BROCERIUS)

Anyway, the fact that you ask me what books I'd recommend that cover the same ground is dumbfounding; what ground was covered? I could write a 1000 page treatise on how the economy is broken and how the Presidency is actually run by a splinter group of androids known only as the La-Li-Lu-Le-Lo. It doesn't mean anything; these movies don't cover any ground. They wallow about in an idiot's head, and he knows enough about iMovie that you start to think "Hey, this brain don't look half bad from the inside!"


I hope that my revised version offends you less and encourages you to explore new plateaus of education and thinking, you stupid twat.friend.

[Brocerius]

Ah, the old chantard method of debate. Always used to good effect. I understand the appropriate response is
NO U
though perhaps I should make that a flashing gif and throw in some porn to make sure you see it?

[SlappyMcGee]

You have clearly shown yourself to be the superior intellect. I concede.