The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Crunch on August 07, 2019, 06:05:39 PM

Title: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on August 07, 2019, 06:05:39 PM
I thought this was fake, seems it’s not (I’d like to find out it’s some elaborate hoax). It’s a movie about privileged vacationers hunting “deplorables” for sport:

Quote
According to the Hollywood trade publication, characters in the film refer to the victims as “deplorables,” which is what Hillary Clinton famously dubbed Trump supporters during the 2016 election. The report noted that a character asks, "Did anyone see what our ratf--ker-in-chief just did?"

"At least The Hunt's coming up. Nothing better than going out to the Manor and slaughtering a dozen deplorables," a character responds, according to THR.

Quote
“The violent, R-rated film from producer Jason Blum's Blumhouse follows a dozen MAGA types who wake up in a clearing and realize they are being stalked for sport by elite liberals,” THR’s Kim Masters wrote. “It features guns blazing along with other ultra-violent killings as the elites pick off their prey.”

Quote
Set for release in September, “The Hunt” depicts a group of gun-toting strangers who find themselves part of a scheme in which “a bunch of elites kidnap normal folks like us and hunt us for sport,” as actor Ike Barinholtz says in the trailer.

Produced by Jason Blum’s Blumhouse Productions, which was also behind “Get Out” and “The Purge,” the movie stars Barinholtz, Betty Gilpin, Emma Roberts and Hilary Swank, among others.

I guess the only question left is if it will win a Golden Globe or even an Oscar. I suppose it depends on the body count it can inspire across the nation. What’s the over/under? 10? 20?
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Wayward Son on August 07, 2019, 06:38:42 PM
Ya gotta get on ball there, Crunch.  Where've you been?  Your talking about a premise almost identical to "The Purge:"  gov't makes it legal to shoot poor people one night a year (the rich protect themselves) and it backfires on them.  This is just them guys trying to milk a bit more out of the idea of class warfare.

It'll have the same impact as the three (or is it four? five? anyone keeping count?) Purge films--they'll make a few million, and hardly anyone will notice.  ::)  Just like all them Jason films and Halloween films and other slasher films.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on August 07, 2019, 06:41:02 PM
Related:

Quote
Democrat and brother to 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Julián Castro on Monday tweeted a list of 44 San Antonio donors who contributed the maximum amount under federal law to Trump in 2019. “Sad to see so many San Antonians as of 2019 maximum donors to Donald Trump,” he wrote, calling out a couple of the city’s better-known donors by their Twitter handles.

Quote
Castro is also refusing to back down. In an appearance on Morning Joe on Wednesday, when pressed on whether the people on the list would now be harassed, Castro said he wants the donors “to think twice about supporting a guy who is fueling hate in this country.”
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on August 07, 2019, 06:45:44 PM
Ya gotta get on ball there, Crunch.  Where've you been?  Your talking about a premise almost identical to "The Purge:"  gov't makes it legal to shoot poor people one night a year (the rich protect themselves) and it backfires on them.  This is just them guys trying to milk a bit more out of the idea of class warfare.

It'll have the same impact as the three (or is it four? five? anyone keeping count?) Purge films--they'll make a few million, and hardly anyone will notice.  ::)  Just like all them Jason films and Halloween films and other slasher films.

Where have you been? Have you seen current events?

Ackshually, the premise dates back to a 1920’s era book called The Most Dangerous Game. It’s been done and redone many times over the years. Van Damme, Rutger Hauer, many others with different spins.

So you love the idea of killing MAGA types. You’re cool with this. Ok

Crunch: Please see your email. -OrneryMod
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDrake on August 07, 2019, 07:03:47 PM
I wonder if you'd have same reaction if they were social justice warriors from antifa. It's a work of fiction.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on August 07, 2019, 07:04:50 PM
Scene from the movie

Quote
Dozens of protesters gathered outside of Mitch McConnell’s home in Louisville Monday night, including one who wished the Senate majority leader would suffer several violent injuries.

Response:
Quote
Just stab the mother*censored*er in the heart, please,” the videographer replied.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on August 07, 2019, 07:06:58 PM
I wonder if you'd have same reaction if they were social justice warriors from antifa. It's a work of fiction.

Ok, you’re cool with it too. Nice.

What if it was a bunch of abortion activists from planned parenthood? That work of fiction fun too?
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: cherrypoptart on August 07, 2019, 10:46:02 PM
Maybe they'll reshoot it with a twist or alternate ending in which the deplorables get the upper hand and have their revenge. That's how it always works out in the other movies where the victims turn the worm and put the shoe on the other foot though I highly doubt that was the original ending for this film it would make it interesting and "fair". If they kept it secret enough and surprised everyone with an ending like that it would be like a double irony play and the people saying the movie was no big deal might all of a sudden be quite offended while those who were offended would be laughing their heads off. Maybe I should drop this into the producers' suggestion box and ask for a screen credit as a script consultant. Might be a sneaky way to save their investment anyway.

But yeah, as it is the so called irony of it might get interpreted more as hypocrisy and even worse for art sometimes, just bad taste, like Kathy Griffin's Trump head.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDrake on August 08, 2019, 03:29:14 AM
I wonder if you'd have same reaction if they were social justice warriors from antifa. It's a work of fiction.

Ok, you’re cool with it too. Nice.

What if it was a bunch of abortion activists from planned parenthood? That work of fiction fun too?

It could be. I very much enjoyed a film that postulated libruls who poisoned their dinner guests. Didn't mean I was cool with people actually doing that.

But you never responded to my query. If it was people hunting antifa, how would that be for you?
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: D.W. on August 08, 2019, 08:40:52 AM
As cherry points out, the typical trope is for the hunted to turn the tables on the hunter in this genre.  Despite the lame attempt to cash in on the partisan divide, it sounds like bad story telling...  Or maybe this is more strait up horror movie where 1 gets away all traumatized and the rest are gruesomely murdered by the "monster(s)"?

Or maybe the whole thing is a pet project to rile up people like Crunch?   :P
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Seriati on August 08, 2019, 09:19:33 AM
It could be. I very much enjoyed a film that postulated libruls who poisoned their dinner guests. Didn't mean I was cool with people actually doing that.

The Last Supper right?  I enjoyed it too.  That was a self reflective piece where liberals explored how their belief in their goodness was confronted as they eliminated cartoon versions of conservatives.

I think this film is in poor taste, but so is most of the horror porn genre.  I would find interesting if those who defend the piece would think of it differently if we "correctly" dog whistled by say having it be  a release of KKK films and the hunted being minorities?  Or would you recognize that for the dangerous piece of propaganda encouraging the events that it is?

To me the appropriate response here is to consider what the actual message is and if it's truly a message of hate to condemn and even blacklist those behind the film as the hate mongers they are. 
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDrake on August 08, 2019, 10:38:57 AM
True, it really depends on the full context. Are the Magans the protagonists, or is it the hunters? Do they escape the clutches of the evil liberals and turn the tables on them? If so, it could be a commentary on the dangers of demonizing and threatening a group.

Quote
The movie follows a group of twelve people who wake up in a clearing - with no idea where they are or how they got there - only to find themselves being hunted by a collection of wealthy "elites"... that is, until one of them (GLOW's Betty Gilpin) turns the tables on her would-be killers.

Would a propaganda film against conservatives end with one of them turning the tables on a liberal elite?
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on August 08, 2019, 02:43:09 PM
As a derivative work, I assume this story follows the original with the hunted turning the tables on the hunters. But that’s not the point at all. Obviously.

We are in a time period where liberals are demanding that Trump inspired terrorism and violence with his tweets. We are also in a time when politically motivated shootings have occurred and groups like antifa routinely engages in violence against conservatives or any other political opponents. All with the blessings of the left.

Now, let’s drop in a high value production that glamorizes hunting and killing political opponents. Spends a couple of hours showing how exciting and cool it is along with all the justifications for doing it. You can see right here in this thread a couple of people are embracing that fantasy, giving it room to breathe.

Does anyone really think that this is a good thing? I see a couple of you do.

Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Wayward Son on August 08, 2019, 03:20:37 PM
Quote
So you love the idea of killing MAGA types. You’re cool with this. Ok.

F**k you, G2, you stinking liar.  >:(

Wayward: Please see your email. -OrneryMod
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Wayward Son on August 08, 2019, 03:46:29 PM
I should also point out that the premise of this thread is based on unsubstantiated rumors. (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/liberals-hunt-conservatives-film/)

Quote
However, the ideology and political affiliation of the characters who hunt and kill what appear to be working-class people from largely rural areas remains unclear, despite the aforementioned websites’ [The Epoch Times and The Blaze] repeated and emphatic descriptions of them as “liberal” and “left-wing” elites. Notwithstanding the context of a fictional horror movie, it should be unnecessary to point out that hunting human beings for sport has never been a tenet of Enlightenment liberalism or modern-day American progressivism.

Quote
We asked Universal Pictures whether it could confirm the accuracy or authenticity of those elements of the script published by THR, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. It’s unclear whether the script allegedly seen by THR was at an early stage of development, or a final draft, or whether those elements that suggest a liberal-conservative enmity between the characters made it into the final cut of the film itself.

Without having confirmation of those important details or being able to watch “The Hunt,” we cannot confirm the accuracy of the claim that the movie features “liberal” or “left-wing” characters hunting “Trump supporters” for sport.

And as a few have pointed out, it is the typical Hollywood trope of the quarry turning the tables (which goes all the way back to the short story, "The Most Dangerous Game.")

Quote
The official Universal Pictures website (http://archive.is/6Brqw) for the film, which describes it as “a new mysterious social thriller,” contains the following plot summary:

“Twelve strangers wake up in a clearing. They don’t know where they are, or how they got there. They don’t know they’ve been chosen … for a very specific purpose … The Hunt.

“In the shadow of a dark internet conspiracy theory, a group of elites gathers for the very first time at a remote Manor House to hunt humans for sport. But the elites’ master plan is about to be derailed because one of the hunted, Crystal (Betty Gilpin, GLOW), knows The Hunters’ game better than they do. She turns the tables on the killers, picking them off, one by one, as she makes her way toward the mysterious woman (two-time Oscar® winner Hilary Swank) at the center of it all."

When the hunters are ultimately the ones who get killed, it is hardly an endorsement for hunting. :)
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: scifibum on August 08, 2019, 03:52:56 PM
Sounds like the movie depicts these "elites" as evil and the "MAGA types" as not? I'm not saying this kind of film is any good for society. I'm sure it's not. But I don't think the political effects, intended or actual, would be to encourage killing Trump supporters.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDrake on August 08, 2019, 04:32:06 PM
Quote
As a derivative work, I assume this story follows the original with the hunted turning the tables on the hunters. But that’s not the point at all. Obviously.

Yeah. And SAW glamorizes and normalizes kidnap and torture.

The key will be in the portrayals. Who are the audience supposed to sympathize with? Who are they supposed to hate?

If you wanted to make a movie that encouraged backlash against magans, you'd have a serial killer wearing the trademark hat.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on August 09, 2019, 12:23:47 PM
Sounds like the movie depicts these "elites" as evil and the "MAGA types" as not? I'm not saying this kind of film is any good for society. I'm sure it's not. But I don't think the political effects, intended or actual, would be to encourage killing Trump supporters.

Then why would anything else that we’re constantly told invited violence not be the same bucket?  There’s a double standard here.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: D.W. on August 09, 2019, 12:37:44 PM
That whole bucket is a joke.  It's a common tactic of deflection is all. 
Now excuse me as I go back to watching John Wick movies and playing my first person shooter games.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDrake on August 09, 2019, 12:41:24 PM
Sounds like the movie depicts these "elites" as evil and the "MAGA types" as not? I'm not saying this kind of film is any good for society. I'm sure it's not. But I don't think the political effects, intended or actual, would be to encourage killing Trump supporters.

Then why would anything else that we’re constantly told invited violence not be the same bucket?  There’s a double standard here.

Brokeback mountain depicted a gay person being killed for being gay. Was that an anti-gay film?
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: scifibum on August 09, 2019, 02:17:05 PM
Sounds like the movie depicts these "elites" as evil and the "MAGA types" as not? I'm not saying this kind of film is any good for society. I'm sure it's not. But I don't think the political effects, intended or actual, would be to encourage killing Trump supporters.

Then why would anything else that we’re constantly told invited violence not be the same bucket?  There’s a double standard here.

No there isn't a double standard. People who deplore movie and video game violence in general are largely consistent about that. People who think Presidents shouldn't scapegoat brown immigrants, or laugh at the suggestion that they be summarily shot, are consistent about that opinion.

The parallel you're looking for is a liberal leader at a rally yukking it up about violence against Republicans. Good luck finding an example as prominent as Trump.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Wayward Son on August 09, 2019, 03:43:09 PM
Looks like the Right-Wing-o-sphere is going nuts about the rumors about this movie.

A nut named Rick Wiles is blaming the Jews. (https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/rick-wiles-goes-on-an-anti-semitic-rant-over-new-movie-the-hunt/)  ::)

Quote
“They’re talking about murdering conservative Christian rural citizens in this country. That’s no joke. The Jews of Hollywood spent tens of millions of dollars to produce that movie. This is not a joke, this isn’t satire. They’re sending a message: get ready to kill conservatives.”

“The Jews are plotting a Jacobin revolution in this country,” he continued. “If that hasn’t convinced you, what will it take? Next year, when they’re shooting you?”

Fox News calls it "the liberal Twitterstorm fantasy taken to the next level." (https://www.foxnews.com/media/mark-steyn-the-hunt-film)

Of course, Our Racist President says: ""The movie coming out is made in order ... to inflame and cause chaos. They create their own violence, and then try to blame others. They are the true Racists, and are very bad for our Country!" (https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-calls-hollywood-racist-the-hunt-controversy-2019-8)

And there's Ammoland. (https://www.ammoland.com/2019/08/the-hunt-epitomizes-homicidal-hollywood-hypocrisy-on-guns/)  "As for white Americans who believe in their nation being the “greatest terrorist threat,” we see who the murderous aggressors are."

All for a movie no one has seen yet. :)
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on August 10, 2019, 09:54:37 AM
Sounds like the movie depicts these "elites" as evil and the "MAGA types" as not? I'm not saying this kind of film is any good for society. I'm sure it's not. But I don't think the political effects, intended or actual, would be to encourage killing Trump supporters.

Then why would anything else that we’re constantly told invited violence not be the same bucket?  There’s a double standard here.

Did you think Top Gun was an anti Naval aviation film?  ::)

Brokeback mountain depicted a gay person being killed for being gay. Was that an anti-gay film?
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on August 10, 2019, 11:51:06 AM
I’ll finish the post. ....


Top Gun depicted a guy dying as he ejected from the plane. Wasthat an anti naval aviation film?
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on August 10, 2019, 05:07:51 PM
Quote
Universal has decided to scrap the release of The Hunt — an R-rated satire in which elites hunt "deplorables" for sport — following a series of mass shootings across the country. The film had been set to hit theaters on Sept. 27.

Smart decision. Fueling the fantasies of killing political opponents is not a reasonable thing at this moment. Perhaps in a year or two, if things have settled a bit.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: ScottF on August 11, 2019, 12:25:09 PM
I just watched the trailer for the first time. It kinda just looks like the same lame, violent garbage that Hollywood spews out all the time.

If they’re pulling for general reasons around the gameification of murder then fine, but I didn’t see any particular political undertones beyond the typical left/progressive stuff that already exists in most movies anyway.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: D.W. on August 12, 2019, 09:01:58 AM
I for one thank the Deplorables for sparing us from this crappy movie.  :P
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Seriati on August 12, 2019, 10:30:24 AM
No there isn't a double standard. People who deplore movie and video game violence in general are largely consistent about that.

I think the double standard he's looking at is that the same people who run Hollywood and Big Tech, which produces extremely violent content with massive amounts of murder and gun crime, strongly align politically, with those calling to ban guns and decrying the President's "hateful rhetoric."  Honestly, they claim the President wants to murder brown people because he wants to enforce the actual laws on immigration, and that's hateful rhetoric, but a movie about murdering your political opponents is just entertainment that doesn't have an impact on the national conversation. 

To make that clear, the President is responsible for a mass shooting because his words disagree with them politically, even though he's never remotely said anything that calls for a mass shooting; but they can put out a movie about murdering their political opponents and you'd be "crazy" to claim they have a responsibility for any uptick in violence.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: scifibum on August 12, 2019, 12:20:28 PM
A movie that depicts those acts as despicable. An anti-movie-violence critique could be coherent. This is just bogus concern trolling.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Seriati on August 12, 2019, 12:48:59 PM
So, if a movie depicts a graphic rape scene as despicable, does that mean the rape scene won't end up as a clip on porn sites?  Did putting it into the movie, that probably got an R rating as low box office, move the needle more than the millions (?) of men that will watch it over and over again stripped from context?

I just don't know.  I do know that a lot of people have really confused views of things like gun violence from believing the way media presents guns.  Automatic weapons show up all the time on tv, virtually never in real life.  Every tv cop fires their side arm at least every couple weeks, real cops?  Maybe never in their whole career. 

Have you never read anything (and there are thousands of articles on it) about how portraying black kids as thugs on tv led to stereotypes?  How is it possible that it's "clear" in that case, and completely impossible in the other?  Answer - it's not.  Marketing, propaganda, communication effectiveness all follow principals, and the reason this is "different" is just because some people want it to be considered so.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: D.W. on August 12, 2019, 12:53:50 PM
As a writer/actor trying to tell a story, the idea that one snippet may be extracted and played without context must be a pretty distressing thing.  Never gave that much thought before.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDrake on August 12, 2019, 01:56:25 PM
Do we even have any reason to believe this was going to be a negative portrayal? Having someone play the role of innocent victims is a commentary about how they are being treated unfairly. It could make people pause and consider how they feel about liberal mobs threaten people at their homes and restaurants.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: scifibum on August 12, 2019, 03:46:48 PM
So, if a movie depicts a graphic rape scene as despicable, does that mean the rape scene won't end up as a clip on porn sites?  Did putting it into the movie, that probably got an R rating as low box office, move the needle more than the millions (?) of men that will watch it over and over again stripped from context?

This is an example of why rape scenes should be treated sensitively. But there won't be a parallel, unless you expect there to be violence-porn-for-liberals that somehow uses footage from this movie in a way that somehow BOTH:

1. excludes the context that the "hunters" are villains
AND
2. includes the context that the hunters are "liberal elites" and the hunted are "MAGA types". 

This is granting that all those characterizations were accurate in the first place, which might be a stretch.

For the record, I think movies and TV shows glamorize violence and it's a problem, and I also think this movie sounds stupid and offensive. But it does not victimize "MAGA types" in portraying them as victims of evil liberals.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on August 13, 2019, 08:28:15 AM
It depicted people killing each other for political reasons.

I don’t think it matters who was heroic and who was the villain or who was portrayed as the victim. I think that so many of you trying to deny what the plot really was demonstrates that you know it was a bad idea at this moment in time. But, so many of you seem to really dig this fantasy of killing your political opponents so you try to go through the mental gymnastics to accept it.

And you’re probably wondering why the second amendment even exists.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDrake on August 13, 2019, 09:16:06 AM
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/pro-trump-movie-cancelled-thanks-to-trump/
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: D.W. on August 13, 2019, 09:40:12 AM
So... standard trope, not horror movie murder-porn. 
Either way, thanks for sparing the public this fine piece of film.  :)
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Seriati on August 13, 2019, 11:05:15 AM
I think that's an interesting take on the review, but it's hard to say if it is really true.  If you recall The Last Supper, it wasn't really sympathetic to the "conservatives," its was completely about those on the left.

There are characters that Hollywood has produced overtime that had parts of the tone correct, but this movie doesn't sound it would have cast the "deplorables" as good people, my guess is that they'd have had the heroes be a couple that didn't "deserve" to be there (either taking the fall for someone else, or a slight that's more imagined than real).  There'll be plenty of really "deserving deplorables" who get killed, but they won't be anyone you recognize as someone you know from real life, they'll be caricatures from a 40's KKK convention or the like. 
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDrake on August 13, 2019, 11:26:36 AM
Good point, Seriati. Last Supper followed a progression from, hey you can really sympathize with their motives while not agreeing with their murder. The first guest was about as reprehensible as you can get, I'm assuming a huge number of people from all political circles would hate.

Other guests were spared by the group as a whole, which shows their humanity and also helps generate sympathy.

I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least one full on caricature in both of those groups in the Hunt, if not all. Based on The Purge, I'd be surprised if there were any nuanced characters.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: scifibum on August 13, 2019, 03:42:34 PM
Quote
But, so many of you seem to really dig this fantasy of killing your political opponents so you try to go through the mental gymnastics to accept it.

Not sure if you're demonstrating extremely poor reading comprehension or something else, but it reflects poorly on you (not the people you are falsely accusing of things).
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDrake on August 13, 2019, 04:17:56 PM
It's funny when people are all about free speech, decrying censorship, deplatforming and demonetization while applauding their victory in suppressing a film by acting like a screaming mob.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: ScottF on August 13, 2019, 04:27:12 PM
I don't think there's a majority of people applauding this. Like all censorship and "outrage" it's typically a tiny vocal minority. I'm not a fan of a studio caving on stuff like this, regardless of the political leaning.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on August 13, 2019, 04:34:48 PM
Quote
But, so many of you seem to really dig this fantasy of killing your political opponents so you try to go through the mental gymnastics to accept it.

Not sure if you're demonstrating extremely poor reading comprehension or something else, but it reflects poorly on you (not the people you are falsely accusing of things).

So what’s your theory on why they support this film being released at this moment in time?  I’d be ok with it under more temperate times but with antifa support and rationalizations of their actions I think it’s reasonable to assume some level of fantasizing about this. A poll about eliminating your political opponents came out recently and about 20% of Democrats though it was a good idea, a little more than 15% of republicans thought so as well. Want to fuel that? It’s a good idea, you think?

You can pretend it’s all me, that’s the easy way out. But reality doesn’t agree with you.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Wayward Son on August 13, 2019, 04:50:33 PM
Quote
But, so many of you seem to really dig this fantasy of killing your political opponents so you try to go through the mental gymnastics to accept it.

Not sure if you're demonstrating extremely poor reading comprehension or something else, but it reflects poorly on you (not the people you are falsely accusing of things).

So what’s your theory on why they support this film being released at this moment in time?  I’d be ok with it under more temperate times but with antifa support and rationalizations of their actions I think it’s reasonable to assume some level of fantasizing about this. A poll about eliminating your political opponents came out recently and about 20% of Democrats though it was a good idea, a little more than 15% of republicans thought so as well. Want to fuel that? It’s a good idea, you think?

You can pretend it’s all me, that’s the easy way out. But reality doesn’t agree with you.

At what time does the film identify all the hunted characters as being Trump supporters?  Please give the range of minutes, so I can see for myself without having to sit through the whole stupid thing.

Otherwise, stop being outraged that people aren't outraged about your fantasy, and making up stories about why they aren't outraged.  ::)
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on August 14, 2019, 07:52:37 AM
Uh, the film was pulled from release so, you see, the exact minutes are not available yet. Also, you can see the release materials from the distributor to find out about political affiliations. It’s actually pretty easy.

I’m not outraged, I even talk about the movie being released at a later date. I only question this timing. The fantasy is yours. The stores being made up are, well, yours.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on August 14, 2019, 08:08:02 AM
Quote
Police in San Antonio arrested a man early Tuesday morning in connection with gunshots fired through the windows of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in the city, according to the agency.

But yeah, it’s just a fantasy on my part. Right. Tell me again that this isn’t happening.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Wayward Son on August 14, 2019, 10:12:41 AM
Quote
Uh, the film was pulled from release so, you see, the exact minutes are not available yet.

So how do you know those minutes will be released?  Crystal ball? :)
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Wayward Son on August 14, 2019, 10:19:02 AM
Quote
Police in San Antonio arrested a man early Tuesday morning in connection with gunshots fired through the windows of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in the city, according to the agency.

But yeah, it’s just a fantasy on my part. Right. Tell me again that this isn’t happening.

Waitaminute.  You're saying that a movie, that has not yet been released and only a few seconds of clips have been shown, has inspired someone to start shooting at his political opponents?  Seriously?  :o

So tell me, how do you think racist rhetoric from the President influence White Nationalists? ;)  ;D
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Seriati on August 14, 2019, 10:21:53 AM
Wayward, that wasn't what he said.  If the Dem's theory on Trump's responsibility for mass shootings is to hold water, then it must follow that attacks on ICE can be directly attributed to the anti-ICE rhetoric of the Dems.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDrake on August 14, 2019, 10:36:37 AM
Wayward, that wasn't what he said.  If the Dem's theory on Trump's responsibility for mass shootings is to hold water, then it must follow that attacks on ICE can be directly attributed to the anti-ICE rhetoric of the Dems.

Possibly. Or ICE policy. When Democrats demand better treatment for detainees, that isn't inciting violence, is it? When you claim that there's an invasion of illegals that must be stopped, that seems a little different. If Democrats are calling ICE agents violent criminals or a threat, I've missed it but I'm open to being persuaded.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Seriati on August 14, 2019, 10:52:11 AM
TheDrake, you can't play this both ways.  Trump's "rhetoric" often is not accurately described and never directly calls for violence, yet the Dem's want to make the hard attribution, they can't walk back the language they've used on ICE and have any consistency in not being responsible here.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDrake on August 14, 2019, 11:06:48 AM
Violent criminals are invading your country!

That's not explicitly a call for a violent response, but it sure has played that way. Roll around on Breitbart and you'll see that there are quite a few that think border crossers should be shot dead.

You want to draw a similarity, I'll meet you there. You want to draw an equivalence? I just don't see it.

For a while, Democrats were talking about abolishing ICE.

Quote
We should abolish ICE and start over, focusing on our priorities to protect our families and our borders in a humane and thoughtful fashion," Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., said in a Medium post. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., said on MSNBC on Wednesday that he also believed ICE should be abolished. “They are carrying out the policies of this administration, which I think has damaged not only their reputation but their credibility,” he said.

How do you see that as inciting violence against them?
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: D.W. on August 14, 2019, 11:27:05 AM
To play devil's advocate, even if I think the comparison is silly:
When you compare the detention camps to concentration camps, what does that make the ICE agents?  If you believe the guards are inhuman monsters hiding behind "just following orders", I could see someone justifying violence against them. 

People are capable of some extreme stuff when they believe they have the undeniable moral high ground and are fighting "evil". 
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Wayward Son on August 14, 2019, 11:53:21 AM
Wayward, that wasn't what he said.  If the Dem's theory on Trump's responsibility for mass shootings is to hold water, then it must follow that attacks on ICE can be directly attributed to the anti-ICE rhetoric of the Dems.

Really?  I must have missed that.  Could you quote where Crunch actually said that?  Because I thought we were talking about "The Hunt." ???
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Seriati on August 14, 2019, 12:51:19 PM
Violent criminals are invading your country!

That's not explicitly a call for a violent response, but it sure has played that way.

So I said, his comments are misrepresented and don't say what people claim they say, and you're response is an incediary paraphrase?  Or is that a quote of which I'm not aware?

Quote
You want to draw a similarity, I'll meet you there. You want to draw an equivalence? I just don't see it.

For a while, Democrats were talking about abolishing ICE.

I agree there's no equivalence, the words that Dems have actually used on ICE are more outrageous than Trump's.  Abolish ICE is the nicest thing they've said.  They've called for harrassing US agents and their families, and tried to draw parallels to them and the Nazis during the Holocaust.

Quote
Quote
We should abolish ICE and start over, focusing on our priorities to protect our families and our borders in a humane and thoughtful fashion," Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., said in a Medium post. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., said on MSNBC on Wednesday that he also believed ICE should be abolished. “They are carrying out the policies of this administration, which I think has damaged not only their reputation but their credibility,” he said.

How do you see that as inciting violence against them?

I find you citing mild mannered versions to be offensive, especially after you paraphrased the media's version of Trump's position.  Why not cite the ones accusing them of being criminals, of dehumanizing illegal immigrants, of concentration camps, if you're making a serious case?

In any event, if you're to temporize on that it just proves that the accusation that there is a connection between one persons words and another persons actions is pure political convenience in your mind.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDrake on August 14, 2019, 01:47:02 PM
I'll give you the concentration camps analogy, that's a fair criticism. I can't think of any time a Democratic politician has talked about harassing the families of ICE agents.

Quote
Today, actor Peter Fonda demanded activists visit the homes of ICE agents to harass their families. He also urged his followers to surround their kids at school.

So, I guess you're attributing the same gravitas to things Trump and the administration say to some random actor, and I've never even heard that quote before and had to look it up? You want to blame Fonda for inciting violence equivalent to Trump? I'm happy to go along with no reservations.

I didn't think I had to actually find the Trump quotes that the paraphrase were about. He talks about an invasion incessantly, echoed by many others. He and others make constant references to gangs, rapists, murderers, and other violent criminals.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDrake on August 14, 2019, 02:18:33 PM
After further reading, I'll go along with the idea that the left certainly has a growing number of people who are willing to commit or accept violence against ICE. I think they tend to be a lot further left than most of Democratic politicians. Even so, those politicians are engaging in dangerous rhetoric. They fail to differentiate between ICE policy and the agents forced to carry it out. They do little to condemn the violence committed, and use it crassly to pivot to attacking Trump.

It's funny that I didn't spot more of this, despite using Breitbart as a counterpoint to other news sources. It seems even they are much more interested in talking about violence committed by immigrants than violence committed against ICE.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on August 14, 2019, 03:34:26 PM
Quote
Uh, the film was pulled from release so, you see, the exact minutes are not available yet.

So how do you know those minutes will be released?  Crystal ball? :)

Do you know how this works? Seriously. Movie made, previews released, marketing materials, theatre release date set. Have you even been following this? Are you just pretending you don’t know all this?
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on August 14, 2019, 03:35:42 PM
Quote
Police in San Antonio arrested a man early Tuesday morning in connection with gunshots fired through the windows of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in the city, according to the agency.

But yeah, it’s just a fantasy on my part. Right. Tell me again that this isn’t happening.

Waitaminute.  You're saying that a movie, that has not yet been released and only a few seconds of clips have been shown, has inspired someone to start shooting at his political opponents?  Seriously?  :o

So tell me, how do you think racist rhetoric from the President influence White Nationalists? ;)  ;D

No. I’m nit saying that. Please tell me you’re pretending to not understand. If you’re not pretending you may want to seek help.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Wayward Son on August 14, 2019, 04:55:24 PM
Quote
Uh, the film was pulled from release so, you see, the exact minutes are not available yet.

So how do you know those minutes will be released?  Crystal ball? :)

Do you know how this works? Seriously. Movie made, previews released, marketing materials, theatre release date set. Have you even been following this? Are you just pretending you don’t know all this?

Oh, I understand the process, apparently better than you.  How often scripts get revised, even during production.  How the story can be changed even more during editing.  How you really don't know what the film will be until it is actually shown.

Which is why I am pointing out that you have no knowledge that these scenes are, or will be, in the movie.  So the whole basis of your argument in this thread is based on a pile of poop, which means your whole argument is poop, and every single accusation you've made against Democrats, liberals and people on this thread based on this movie is basically a pile of poop.  And, frankly, the stench is starting to offend me.

So why don't you just flush this whole thing like a decent person and realize you've been had again by the Conservative Media.  That they fooled you once again into believing something that just isn't true.  That this movie has nothing to do with what liberals and Democrats believe should be done with Trump Republicans.  That this is all a fantasy construct put together by deluded minds that you, unfortunately, swallowed hook, line and sinker.  Cut your loses, admit that this is based on nothing, and leave it be.

And please don't reply with another lame "are you pretending" B.S.  If you don't have an answer, admit it.  But don't try to say that I don't understand, that I'm pretending, that I'm the one who is not being honest and forthright here.  It's a silly game, and you're not fooling anyone.  It didn't work in the fourth grade, and it doesn't work now.

Got it?
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Wayward Son on August 14, 2019, 05:00:18 PM
Quote
Police in San Antonio arrested a man early Tuesday morning in connection with gunshots fired through the windows of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in the city, according to the agency.

But yeah, it’s just a fantasy on my part. Right. Tell me again that this isn’t happening.

Waitaminute.  You're saying that a movie, that has not yet been released and only a few seconds of clips have been shown, has inspired someone to start shooting at his political opponents?  Seriously?  :o

So tell me, how do you think racist rhetoric from the President influence White Nationalists? ;)  ;D

No. I’m not saying that. Please tell me you’re pretending to not understand. If you’re not pretending you may want to seek help.

No, I don't understand.  I can only read what you wrote and make inferences from that.  I can't read your mind (not that I'd want to).  I can't guess about things you don't say.

May I suggest that a simple few sentences explaining yourself would be more productive than suggesting that I seek help?
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Seriati on August 14, 2019, 07:05:52 PM
It's hard to see how the thread is "poop" in a world where you want to attribute third party actions to Trump's words.  If you've decided you were wrong about that all along, then so be it.  Otherwise, you can't have it both ways, and there's nothing wrong with a bit of speculation about the message of the movie based on what's actually been released.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Fenring on August 14, 2019, 08:12:04 PM
Wayward, you are way, *way* overstating your case. Of course it's true that you don't exactly know what's in a movie until you see it. But your position seems to be that we literally cannot make any comments about it of any kind before seeing it, which I think is silly. There is plenty you can say about a film prior to its release, which can include:

-What it wants to be seen as
-How it's marketed
-What the blurb says it's about
-Its title

Speaking of title, its original title was apparently "Red State vs. Blue State" but it was changed. I'm sure you can argue that it must have been changed due to so many rewrites that it no longer has the same story. Of course that's far less likely than the reverse, but it's true no one can be absolutely sure until it opens. The title alone doesn't exactly say what the story is, but it does seem that its self-description is that it's about red vs blue type people, with the reds (I guess) being hunted. It's true that Crunch is prone to jump the gun and cry "you see! they want to kill us!" but at the same time it's not clear that this an implausible guess about what it's about either.

With luck it will actually end up being about how the hunters are neither red nor blue but just rich jerks who think they own everything, while the hunted are more diverse than initially assumed and yet they realize they have a common goal. We can only hope.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on August 15, 2019, 08:12:07 AM
Quote
Uh, the film was pulled from release so, you see, the exact minutes are not available yet.

So how do you know those minutes will be released?  Crystal ball? :)

Do you know how this works? Seriously. Movie made, previews released, marketing materials, theatre release date set. Have you even been following this? Are you just pretending you don’t know all this?

Oh, I understand the process, apparently better than you.  How often scripts get revised, even during production.  How the story can be changed even more during editing.  How you really don't know what the film will be until it is actually shown.

Which is why I am pointing out that you have no knowledge that these scenes are, or will be, in the movie.  So the whole basis of your argument in this thread is based on a pile of poop, which means your whole argument is poop, and every single accusation you've made against Democrats, liberals and people on this thread based on this movie is basically a pile of poop.  And, frankly, the stench is starting to offend me.

So why don't you just flush this whole thing like a decent person and realize you've been had again by the Conservative Media.  That they fooled you once again into believing something that just isn't true.  That this movie has nothing to do with what liberals and Democrats believe should be done with Trump Republicans.  That this is all a fantasy construct put together by deluded minds that you, unfortunately, swallowed hook, line and sinker.  Cut your loses, admit that this is based on nothing, and leave it be.

And please don't reply with another lame "are you pretending" B.S.  If you don't have an answer, admit it.  But don't try to say that I don't understand, that I'm pretending, that I'm the one who is not being honest and forthright here.  It's a silly game, and you're not fooling anyone.  It didn't work in the fourth grade, and it doesn't work now.

Got it?

I do have knowledge of these scenes. So do you. Stop pretending you don’t, this is perhaps the dumbest strawman I’ve ever seen.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on August 15, 2019, 08:57:53 AM
Variety as the same take as I:

Quote
tI end to be an absolutist when it comes to matters of censorship, and if the decision by Universal Pictures to cancel the Sept. 27 release of “The Hunt” was a case of censorship, pure and simple, then I’d be against it. But I believe, in this instance, that the word censorship would be misapplied. There is censorship and there is timing, and in the case of “The Hunt,” a politically charged thriller about a group of “globalist elites” who hunt down people for sport (it sounds, sight unseen, like a variation on the classic 1924 short story “The Most Dangerous Game”), you could argue that a movie studio got caught up in a perfect storm of disastrous timing that would have made the film’s release, as scheduled, seem less a provocation than a brazen act of insensitivity.

Quote
But there’s another factor that, in all likelihood, fed into the decision not to release “The Hunt,” and that factor is undeniably political (which doesn’t necessarily make it wrong).

We know essentially what this movie is and, as I keep saying, it should see release at some point in the relatively near future.  Just not at this moment.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Wayward Son on August 16, 2019, 03:56:36 PM
Fenring said:
Quote
It's true that Crunch is prone to jump the gun and cry "you see! they want to kill us!" but at the same time it's not clear that this an implausible guess about what it's about either.

And that's the thing.  Not only does he jump the gun and cry "They want to kill us!"  He jumps further and states that "If you disagree, that means you want to kill us, too!"  >:(

All based on an unreleased movie that we've only seen snippets and heard rumors about.  ::)

If that ain't poop, I don't know what is.

Crunch said:
Quote
We know essentially what this movie is...

Yes, we all do know what essentially this movie is.

It's essentially a remake of "The Most Dangerous Game," similar to their previous remakes: "The Purge," "The Purge, Election Day," "The First Purge," etc, ad nauseam.  It's a movie where someone decided to try to make it more "relevant" by putting a political twist to it, by having the two sides being Conservatives vs. Liberals.  And since making the gun-toting Conservatives being the hunters was too trite, someone decided to twist it around and have the Liberals being the hunters instead.  And, essentially, this is some stupid little horror/slasher movie that will have as much influence on society as every Halloween, Jason, Saw, Scream, Elm Street, etc. movie that has come before.

What we also all know is that this thread is essentially a hit-piece, an attempt to slander every opponent of Trump and Conservatism.  To state or imply that they would gladly kill the opposition, just like the characters in the movie.  That it is really the fantasy of everyone who dislikes Trump and what he's done to this country.

I'm not saying this is the intention of everyone who has written on this thread.  Just Crunch, who started it.  Crunch, who makes vague excuses like this is "the dumbest strawman" or "stop pretending," because he knows that, if he had to clearly spell out his objections, that he would reveal his irrationality and biased hatred of everything that doesn't fit in his little universe.  How he has overblown the trailers to make it seem that the movie is inspiring people to shoot at ICE offices.  That a stupid little horror movie is indicative of an entire movement of millions of people.  A movie even he hasn't seen yet, but because of his biases and prejudices, believes he knows inside-out already.  And believes that everyone else knows already, too.  And anyone who denies it is "pretending."

Don't worry, Crunch.  Everyone knows the essentials about this movie--and you.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: OrneryMod on August 16, 2019, 05:03:04 PM
Crunch: Your email on record does not appear to be functioning. Please update your email address and contact me at OrneryModerator@hotmail.com. -OrneryMod
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on August 17, 2019, 09:09:13 AM
Fenring said:
Quote
It's true that Crunch is prone to jump the gun and cry "you see! they want to kill us!" but at the same time it's not clear that this an implausible guess about what it's about either.

And that's the thing.  Not only does he jump the gun and cry "They want to kill us!"  He jumps further and states that "If you disagree, that means you want to kill us, too!"  >:(

All based on an unreleased movie that we've only seen snippets and heard rumors about.  ::)

If that ain't poop, I don't know what is.

Crunch said:
Quote
We know essentially what this movie is...

Yes, we all do know what essentially this movie is.

It's essentially a remake of "The Most Dangerous Game," similar to their previous remakes: "The Purge," "The Purge, Election Day," "The First Purge," etc, ad nauseam.  It's a movie where someone decided to try to make it more "relevant" by putting a political twist to it, by having the two sides being Conservatives vs. Liberals.  And since making the gun-toting Conservatives being the hunters was too trite, someone decided to twist it around and have the Liberals being the hunters instead.  And, essentially, this is some stupid little horror/slasher movie that will have as much influence on society as every Halloween, Jason, Saw, Scream, Elm Street, etc. movie that has come before.

What we also all know is that this thread is essentially a hit-piece, an attempt to slander every opponent of Trump and Conservatism.  To state or imply that they would gladly kill the opposition, just like the characters in the movie.  That it is really the fantasy of everyone who dislikes Trump and what he's done to this country.

I'm not saying this is the intention of everyone who has written on this thread.  Just Crunch, who started it.  Crunch, who makes vague excuses like this is "the dumbest strawman" or "stop pretending," because he knows that, if he had to clearly spell out his objections, that he would reveal his irrationality and biased hatred of everything that doesn't fit in his little universe.  How he has overblown the trailers to make it seem that the movie is inspiring people to shoot at ICE offices.  That a stupid little horror movie is indicative of an entire movement of millions of people.  A movie even he hasn't seen yet, but because of his biases and prejudices, believes he knows inside-out already.  And believes that everyone else knows already, too.  And anyone who denies it is "pretending."

Don't worry, Crunch.  Everyone knows the essentials about this movie--and you.

I’m glad to see you finally admit that we do know what this movie is about. We all did, from the very beginning.

You are completely mischaracterizing my position to continue with your strawman though. I’m pointing out the politically motivated violence that’s already occurring on a regular basis right now. Not saying this movie has caused it. I’m saying it’s a bad idea to have a movie portraying more politically motivated violence.  I’m also saying that this movie should be released but the timing is wrong and perhaps some time later would be better, just like Variety does.

You’re completely making up a position for me then attacking that position. It’s a strawman argument.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on August 17, 2019, 09:39:09 AM
Crunch: Your email on record does not appear to be functioning. Please update your email address and contact me at OrneryModerator@hotmail.com. -OrneryMod

Tried a few times, keep getting this:

Quote
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of
its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es)
failed:

OrneryModerator@hotmail.com:
SMTP error from remote server for MAIL FROM command, host: hotmail-com.olc.protection.outlook.com (104.47.37.33) reason: 550 5.7.1 Service unavailable, Client host [82.165.159.131] blocked using
Spamhaus. To request removal from this list see https://www.spamhaus.o
rg/query/ip/82.165.159.131 (AS3130). [CY1NAM02FT021.eop-nam02.prod.pro
tection.outlook.com]

I use that email quite a bit, never had it flagged spam before. I’ll create a new address and try it.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Wayward Son on August 21, 2019, 03:48:35 PM
Quote
You are completely mischaracterizing my position to continue with your strawman though. I’m pointing out the politically motivated violence that’s already occurring on a regular basis right now. Not saying this movie has caused it. I’m saying it’s a bad idea to have a movie portraying more politically motivated violence.  I’m also saying that this movie should be released but the timing is wrong and perhaps some time later would be better, just like Variety does.

A reasonable position, worth discussing.  If that were all it was.  But, starting with your initial post:

Quote
I guess the only question left is if it will win a Golden Globe or even an Oscar. I suppose it depends on the body count it can inspire across the nation. What’s the over/under? 10? 20?

Presuming that this movie will win top awards moves your position into one where you are saying the Hollywood establishment endorses portraying politically motivated violence.  And I think we all know who the Hollywood establishment are associated with.  Hint—it ain’t Conservatives. ;)
From there, it is not hard to find instances where you seem to be saying that Liberals (or at least those who disagree with you) are inclined to agree with the idea of politically motivated violence.  E.g.

So you love the idea of killing MAGA types. You’re cool with this. Ok

(That was in response to my challenging your assumption of how influential such a movie, when released, would be.)

Quote
I don’t think it matters who was heroic and who was the villain or who was portrayed as the victim. But, so many of you seem to really dig this fantasy of killing your political opponents so you try to go through the mental gymnastics to accept it.
And you’re probably wondering why the second amendment even exists.

(That was in response to scifibum challenging the idea that the scenes would be used to inspire violence.)

And while you do mention that 15 percent of Republicans thought it was a “good idea” to eliminate their political opponents, you stated that 5 percent more of Democrats thought it was a “good idea,” too.

Based on those quotes, along with your detailed descriptions of scenes of a movie that hasn’t been released yet, I don’t think it is unreasonable to assume that you are also arguing that Democrats, Liberals, and the Liberal-Elites are actually quite OK with this, if not actively supporting it.  So I wouldn’t call it a “complete mischaracterization.”
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on August 26, 2019, 07:36:49 AM
smh
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on February 11, 2020, 05:07:54 PM
Good news:

Quote
Universal Pictures said Tuesday that it will release the social satire “The Hunt,” a film it canceled in the wake of criticism about its premise of “elites” hunting people for sport in red states.

A trailer announcing the film’s March 13 release date presents the “elites” hunting regular people for sport in red states.

I like the timing of this a lot better now. This’ll be great.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: rightleft22 on February 11, 2020, 05:42:49 PM
:( Everyday Crunch you either make me laugh or cry

The word 'elites' has lost its meaning. Only in the world of athletic's is being a elite sought after, for the rest we prefer idiots 
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on February 11, 2020, 06:25:33 PM
Au contraire, when we say “elites” in a political context we all know exactly who we’re talking about. The meaning is clearer now than ever before.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDrake on February 11, 2020, 06:43:48 PM
It's the Deep State! Mwah hah hah.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: wmLambert on February 11, 2020, 06:49:52 PM
TheDrake, you can't play this both ways.  Trump's "rhetoric" often is not accurately described and never directly calls for violence, yet the Dem's want to make the hard attribution, they can't walk back the language they've used on ICE and have any consistency in not being responsible here.

Totally agree. What shocked me about this film was the reversal of roles. History shows the Progressives are violent hatemongers, in general, yet the projection is out there for all to see, as they blame their victims as predators and reverse the way things are. For example The KKK was midwifed by Woodrow Wilson, and the victims of those hangings in the South were mostly all Civil Rights activists in the GOP; yet they attempt to project their own perfidy onto the Right.. The point is that the violent ones routinely project their own intolerance onto their victims and Hollywood is entirely a part of that paradigm. As an example the Jussie Smollett hypocrisy was totally accepted by the Leftist elites. Wearing a MAGA hat is not antagonistic, but the Left sold it. How the Media remained silent after CNN settled the Covington lawsuit with Nick Sandmann is representational of how the Left doesn't even attempt to cover news fairly.

Now this film seems like something a decent filmmaker might produce, yet it is too violent for their tastes. So is it a mockumentary?
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on February 11, 2020, 07:48:40 PM
It's the Deep State! Mwah hah hah.

It’s Sanders, AOC, Pelosi, Schiff, the DNC media, Hollywood celebrities, et al. How can anyone not know this?
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: rightleft22 on February 12, 2020, 10:35:46 AM
Quote
Au contraire, when we say “elites” in a political context we all know exactly who we’re talking about. The meaning is clearer now than ever before.

The world elite is applied to anyone who has educational and employment experience but disagrees with what you think and "know"
A word that become derogatory in the continued attempt to undermines education which is very much what some segment of the population wants.

So maybe your right we we all 'know' exactly what is being referred to when we use the word.
 
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDrake on February 12, 2020, 12:20:10 PM
It's the Deep State! Mwah hah hah.

It’s Sanders, AOC, Pelosi, Schiff, the DNC media, Hollywood celebrities, et al. How can anyone not know this?

You're leaving out a bunch and have a few on the list that don't apply.

The elite include lots of Republican globalists, almost all career politicians, almost anyone with a graduate degree....

Senator Hawley put it this way:

Quote
Today’s society benefits those who shaped it, and it has been shaped not by working men and women, but by the new aristocratic elite. Big banks, big tech, big multi-national corporations, along with their allies in the academy and the media—these are the aristocrats of our age. They live in the United States, but they consider themselves citizens of the world.

They operate businesses or run universities here, but their primary loyalty is to their own agenda for a more unified, progressive—and profitable—global order. These modern aristocrats often claim to be a meritocracy. And many of them truly believe they are. What they don’t see, or won’t acknowledge, is that the society they have built works mainly for themselves. They’ve effectively run this country for decades. And their legacy is national division and national decline.

In a prior time, people would have referred to the elite as "The Man".
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on February 12, 2020, 12:27:03 PM
Quote
Au contraire, when we say “elites” in a political context we all know exactly who we’re talking about. The meaning is clearer now than ever before.

The world elite is applied to anyone who has educational and employment experience but disagrees with what you think and "know"
A word that become derogatory in the continued attempt to undermines education which is very much what some segment of the population wants.

So maybe your right we we all 'know' exactly what is being referred to when we use the word.
 

Wrong. The elite are people that insist their smarter and better educated than the rubes in “flyover country” or the hillbillies in the south. They insist that their education gives them special privileges to rule over their lessers as they know what’s better for them than they themselves do. They signal their virtue like wearing free range gold and gems (or whatever it was Fonda did) and oat themselves and n the back over their wokeness.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: DonaldD on February 12, 2020, 12:35:07 PM
Debating definitions is rarely worthwhile - one almost invariable gets to the point of of stating "what you meant when you wrote 'X' is actually 'Y'" without any understanding of the unintentional irony.

Of course, sometimes people do this consciously in order to obfuscate, but nobody here would do that...
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDrake on February 12, 2020, 12:38:54 PM
Quote
oat themselves and n the back over their wokeness

I wonder why the elite might think you are a rube.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on February 12, 2020, 12:59:01 PM
Quote
oat themselves and n the back over their wokeness

I wonder why the elite might think you are a rube.

Exactly what I’m talking about, perfect example. I could not have scripted it any better.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDrake on February 12, 2020, 01:19:21 PM
Sometimes people think they know more because they do know more. Like which state the Kansas City Chiefs play in. Or how a tariff actually works (hint, the originating country doesn't pay it).
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Seriati on February 12, 2020, 01:37:30 PM
Sometimes people think they know more because they do know more. Like which state the Kansas City Chiefs play in. Or how a tariff actually works (hint, the originating country doesn't pay it).

No strong comment on the Chiefs, I'd forgotten that they're in Missouri as well.  Pretty sure, given they're the only team in the area that they have a bunch of fans in Kansas as well (not that it makes his comment make "sense"). 

But I think Trump may in fact understand tariffs better than you and those who keep playing out of the econ 101 playbook.  That playbook is arguing things from a "model" environment, where things are simplified and have to play out in set ways.  The way Trump is using them wasn't what was modeled.

I haven't seen the econ model that tried to determine the value of tariffs on certain products to redress trade imbalances across an economy.  When you add in the potential impact they have on the balance of trade, particularly, where one is the major consumer of the world and their's an unfair balance, you could probably see that the "costs" borne by consumers on the tariffs (which are less than they appear in the simple models) are actually far less than the overall benefits to the economy that are shared back to those same consumers.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: yossarian22c on February 12, 2020, 01:44:50 PM
I haven't seen the econ model that tried to determine the value of tariffs on certain products to redress trade imbalances across an economy.  When you add in the potential impact they have on the balance of trade, particularly, where one is the major consumer of the world and their's an unfair balance, you could probably see that the "costs" borne by consumers on the tariffs (which are less than they appear in the simple models) are actually far less than the overall benefits to the economy that are shared back to those same consumers.

But the tariffs are paid in the US.

That said the trade war with China (before he backed off in the election year without getting the structural changes needed) was probably Trump's best policy. I still think it was executed poorly (isolationist instead of getting global pressure) but a good policy to be extremely tough on China with trade. They have been using their intelligence services for years, along with other pressures, to steal IP from the rest of the world.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDrake on February 12, 2020, 01:47:10 PM
Seriati, I'm not arguing the policy of tariffs. I'm talking about the mechanism.

Quote
"Tariffs are NOW being paid to the United States by China of 25% on 250 Billion Dollars worth of goods & products. These massive payments go directly to the Treasury of the U.S." — tweet Friday.

Neither Chinese companies nor the Chinese government pay tariffs. Importers pay tariffs, and often pass to consumers. That's just a straight up fact. But the dumb version plays well with the ignorantgensia, who also don't know any better.

Should the average person know this? Probably not. But the people who do have a more valuable opinion on tariffs than the jokers who don't.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDeamon on February 12, 2020, 02:33:40 PM
But I think Trump may in fact understand tariffs better than you and those who keep playing out of the econ 101 playbook.  That playbook is arguing things from a "model" environment, where things are simplified and have to play out in set ways.  The way Trump is using them wasn't what was modeled.

I'd tend to argue more the opposite. That trump's use of Tariffs is something the model environment does attempt to address. What the models fail to adequately address, and where Trump's use becomes an edge-case, is in respect to China's abuse of said economic models through China's manipulation of the markets. So where things go out the window is that Trump is using Tariffs to leverage a large national entity(China) into ceasing to manipulate and distort markets like they have been doing. Which isn't anything close to the standard scenario envisioned.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: rightleft22 on February 12, 2020, 02:43:08 PM
Quote
Wrong. The elite are people that insist their smarter and better educated than the rubes in “flyover country” or the hillbillies in the south. They insist that their education gives them special privileges to rule over their lessers as they know what’s better for them than they themselves do. They signal their virtue like wearing free range gold and gems (or whatever it was Fonda did) and oat themselves and n the back over their wokeness.

Ah its a confusion between the word 'elite' and a 'elitist'.  Not all elite's are elitist. Any elitist would, IMO, be disqualified as being a elite in their field.
What you describe above I would label as 'ass hats' which exist across the political spectrum. And I agree the 'wokeness' of purity politics is absurd and those that ascribe to it are 'ass hats' the opposite of being a elite.

The purposeful misusing the world 'elite' intent is to disparage education and the dumbing down of the population making them easier to manipulate. Get the people to distrust science and anyone of authority.... and you can gas light them so they question their own reality.

Democracy relies on trust. Trust that even when those you disagree with our in power they aren't out to do you intentional harm.  Undermine trust and you undermine Democracy. Which maybe just was some political parties want.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: ScottF on February 12, 2020, 02:52:08 PM
Democracy relies on trust. Trust that even when those you disagree with our in power they aren't out to do you intentional harm.  Undermine trust and you undermine Democracy. Which maybe just was some political parties want.
I agree with this premise.

Do you think Trump's current opponents and the media operate in a way that generally assumes he isn't out to do intentional harm?
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDeamon on February 12, 2020, 03:11:44 PM
Do you think Trump's current opponents and the media operate in a way that generally assumes he isn't out to do intentional harm?

Obviously not, a lot of them use rhetoric which makes it very plain as day they feel Trump is harmful to the country, and very likely to be deliberately so.

The left-wits are even worse when you get the claims that Trump is trying to establish a monarchy with his family heading it.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Seriati on February 12, 2020, 03:31:24 PM
I said the econ 101 answer isn't enough, and the response is the econ 101 answer?  if this is as rock solid as you believe, then wouldn't you also oppose any corporate taxes, since the consumers ultimately pay those as well?

The tariffs "get paid" in the US, but only if they get paid. China's got an active state manipulation of its markets going on, it deliberately props them up with subsidies so that it can undercut  production in other countries and gain market share, effectively acting like a monopolist trying to drive it's competition under.  If the tariffs undo some of that price manipulation and put them on a level playing field again are they bad for consumers?

If you think so, then you must also rationally oppose laws against many monopolistic practices as beneficial to consumers.  After all, prices can't be better than when they are below cost to drive a competitor out of business.

You'd probably have to believe the corporate tax rates should drop to zero as well, since those are nothing but a cost on consumers.

Tariffs are part of a solution to unfair practices by state actors designed to hurt our economy on an overall basis.

Are we not better off, if an artificially low price generated by a Chinese company with state support both directly with cash and in deliberately low environmental and health standards, is brought up to the level that other companies can match, companies that pay their employees the "living wages" that you guys support, companies that provide health care and that operate in environmentally friendly ways?  Are those not exactly the things you guys say you want?  Why then would you think tariffs on goods that undermine those goals are bad? 

Is it really true that the "costs" of those tariffs are paid here?  When in fact the costs of not having those tariffs are also paid here and may be greater?  Every job lost to China over decades is one of those costs.  Every bit of technology stolen by the Chinese is a net loss.  The massive increase in carbon and pollution from those "cheaper" Chinese goods are a massive cost - and one you guys literally support taxing people in the US to mitigate - is it not cheaper to reduce demand for those polluting goods with a tariff than to add a carbon tax (and better for the environment)?  And that's before you even consider that to the extent the tariffs cause pressure that triggers a better trade deal the tariff costs are just a tiny fraction of the benefits received.  Or that reduced demand on the tariffed products means less of them are purchased (maybe none if the tariff is very high) in which case all you're talking about is an opportunity cost - which its clear you're ignoring since you've ignored the massive opportunity costs of the current system.

So are the "costs" paid here?  Or does the almost certainty that the "net" cost is negative mean that what you're complaining about miss the boat?
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDrake on February 12, 2020, 04:12:30 PM
Seriati, that's a lot of interesting theory about the effectiveness and time value of a tariff. It doesn't change the simple fact of who pays the tariff. Do you think Trump or anyone else who thinks China is paying the US tariff money could construct or understand the arguments you just made?
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: rightleft22 on February 12, 2020, 05:11:19 PM
Quote
Do you think Trump's current opponents and the media operate in a way that generally assumes he isn't out to do intentional harm?
No. The assumption I think most opponents have is that Trump (And now the GOP) is intentionally out to do harm and that the media reporting on this response/concern echoes it, distorting perception. This works to Trump advantage but undermines the system which also works to the administrations advantage reinforcing the fear and distrust which as it feeds itself.

We tend to create what we fear and the DNC is doing a great job. That said Trump rhetoric also comes from a place of fear and negativity towards the 'other'. (His rally performances tend to be mostly negative unless he's talking about himself)  So sometimes its difficult to discern which is creating which.

Personally I think that only a fool would trust a man like Trump however I can separate that from viewing policy and such.
For example I think the administrations policies favor the wealthy which may eventually harm me. However that's a difference of opinion of economic theory, not one of trust, as in the administration is out to get me.   
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Seriati on February 12, 2020, 05:50:19 PM
Seriati, that's a lot of interesting theory about the effectiveness and time value of a tariff. It doesn't change the simple fact of who pays the tariff. Do you think Trump or anyone else who thinks China is paying the US tariff money could construct or understand the arguments you just made?

Yes, in fact I do.  That's why Trump used the tariffs in the first place, even though virtually everyone was against them.  And in fact, those are the results we've gotten, more US factories re-opening (which are far more environmentally friendly), more US job growth, real wage increases, and even new and better trade deals with multiple parties.

Why wouldn't I think this was the intent, when Trump said this would be the result of "winning" a trade war, and they in fact turn out to be the results?  Now imagine how much better it could have been if everyone had gotten behind him instead of trying to undermine him.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDrake on February 12, 2020, 06:22:09 PM
I suspect Trump mostly just wanted to hurt China, and naively assumed that the jobs would come here rather than going to Mexico, Vietnam, or some other foreign source. I'm not going to research to what degree we can actually attribute job growth to Chinese tariffs, but I'm not trying to make this point.

My point is that Trump's understanding and many others is simplistic and naive.

Thousands of economists weighed in on the tariffs - negatively. But hey there just globalist elitists. No reason to listen to them with their Doctorate degrees.

I know you can trot out tons of anecdotes about this business or that. But I see your anecdotes and raise you actual academic studies. I can quote the CBO that talks about the negative effects. I can quote the Federal Reserve. But that's just elitist of me. I should probably ask the guy who just got a job making forks for Williams Sonoma's new US factory to lay his analysis on me.

I won't quote any of those for you here, because my point isn't to say whether tariffs are good or bad. It is to say who I'd rather listen to on the subject, and it ain't a garlic farmer or a guy doing upholstery work.

Elitist swine.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Pete at Home on February 12, 2020, 07:31:34 PM
And it’s all being handled through an elitist swineflu:)
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: cherrypoptart on February 12, 2020, 07:49:20 PM
I would add that the elite are the people who tell you that you have to live a certain way but do not live that way themselves.

Obama is a good example.

"We can't drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times, whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect every other country is going to say OK, you know, you guys go ahead keep on using 25 percent of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we'll be fine. Don't worry about us. That's not leadership".

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/real-estate/a30169311/barack-michelle-obama-buy-marthas-vineyard-house/

Obama talked a lot but one picture of that house says it all.

"Situated on 29.3 waterfront acres near the Edgartown Great Pond, the impressive estate, which was built in 2001, features seven bedrooms, eight bathrooms, and a powder room. It also boasts an elegant master suite complete with a fireplace, as well as two guest wings, a two-car garage, a sun deck, boathouse, and a pool.

With these standout features, there is no doubt that Barack and Michelle Obama, along with their children, Sasha and Malia, will continue to enjoy memorable stays on Martha's Vineyard for years to come."

That's elite.

I mean it's nice that the guy went to Washington to do good and did very well indeed. He could at least come back out now and say, "You know all that stuff I said about the AC and the SUV and using up a lot of energy, well nevermind."
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Seriati on February 12, 2020, 10:50:08 PM
I suspect Trump mostly just wanted to hurt China, and naively assumed that the jobs would come here rather than going to Mexico, Vietnam, or some other foreign source. I'm not going to research to what degree we can actually attribute job growth to Chinese tariffs, but I'm not trying to make this point.

My point is that Trump's understanding and many others is simplistic and naive.

That's not a point.  Fact is, Trump told you what he was doing and why, and got the results he told you he would get.  I think that means those who continue to pretend he didn't know what he was doing are the ones with the simplistic and naive understanding.

Quote
Thousands of economists weighed in on the tariffs - negatively. But hey there just globalist elitists. No reason to listen to them with their Doctorate degrees.

That's an interesting argument.  You seem to believe that a doctorate made them an expert in real world application of business principals, rather than recognizing that a real world business person saw things in a way that apparently didn't show up in the text books all those doctors learned from.

I mean seriously, what percentage of new companies have as a founder a phd in economics?  Some, but far far less than should be the case if that doctorate actually translated to real world success.

I'm going to give you this link on PHDs in economics even though it's not the clearest, because I absolutely love the line where they're describing the pro's of the degree and practically fawning over how it's a great door into academia and policy roles, as the last and least of the "pros":  "Backup options in the corporate sector."  I think that says it all about what the degree is intended to do.

https://80000hours.org/career-reviews/economics-phd/ (https://80000hours.org/career-reviews/economics-phd/)

Quote
I know you can trot out tons of anecdotes about this business or that. But I see your anecdotes and raise you actual academic studies. I can quote the CBO that talks about the negative effects. I can quote the Federal Reserve. But that's just elitist of me.

What that is, is ivory tower thinking.  If it doesn't come from a professor it can't be real.  If the real world disagrees then the real world is wrong.

Those academics told you free trade was the highest ideal, and that tariffs and protectionism have no benefits and only hurt the country that imposes them.  But they left out a lot of real world consequences.  They left out how ignoring the sovereign policies of countries that don't have to respond to their citizens to any great extent (e.g. China and most of the countries in the world), ignores the primary factor that is pushing the economic model (i.e., that tariffs cost consumers more - China doesn't give two figs about first world products, they shut down completely - and it's to the benefit of their regime to do so - never mind that it hurts the standard of living for their serfs).  That because the academics ignored government market manipulation by autocrats their dream of free flow of production and resources has NEVER ACTUALLY happened.  Jobs left the US not because China was actually a better place to do the work, but because they could undercut expenses that the people in the US deemed vital - like environmental and safety expenses - and pay not price for doing so.  Those deals have been net terrible for the world.

They have no solution to fix China.  They said, bring China into the WTO and open trade and it will make them more responsible.  They were so wrong about that its laughable.

Economic models that rely on consumer decisions don't account well for autocrats that make the decisions for their consumers.

Quote
I won't quote any of those for you here, because my point isn't to say whether tariffs are good or bad. It is to say who I'd rather listen to on the subject, and it ain't a garlic farmer or a guy doing upholstery work.

Elitist swine.

The funny thing is, 20 years from now, when - free from TDS - new economists get their degrees there're going to be repeating back the lessons that TRUMP taught them.  Are you going to listen to them at that point?  Will it magically make reality legit that 20 years after the fact they catch up?

If the book learning don't match the facts on the ground, it's kind of ridiculous to double down on it.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on February 13, 2020, 08:53:06 AM
This ^
 
It’s unfortunate I can like that only once.  8)
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: yossarian22c on February 13, 2020, 09:45:24 AM
The funny thing is, 20 years from now, when - free from TDS - new economists get their degrees there're going to be repeating back the lessons that TRUMP taught them.  Are you going to listen to them at that point?  Will it magically make reality legit that 20 years after the fact they catch up?

If the book learning don't match the facts on the ground, it's kind of ridiculous to double down on it.

Going to call BS on this. Trump signed a deal to get China to agree to buy a little more stuff but did nothing to address all of your valid and spot on analysis about Chinese trade practices. If Trump had gotten that deal, one that got China to legitimize their trade practices I would be impressed. Would still probably vote against him but I would view it as his signature achievement and likely one only he could have pulled off for various reasons. A democrat could have never kept the support of farm states and other republicans would have had issues handing out cash to farmers to cushion the impact of the dispute on them.

But honestly I'm for tariffs against all countries based off of income level, worker protections, and environmental regulations. We shouldn't lose businesses to overseas labor if the conditions are barely better than slavery, toxic waste is being dumped into rivers, or as in the case of China they do those things and additionally prop up certain businesses and sell things at below value to harm overseas competitors.

Tariffs that are set up to protect against abuses instead of just protectionism need to be part of a healthy global economy.

Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Seriati on February 13, 2020, 10:43:09 AM
yoss, I recommend reading the NYT write up on the first stage deal.  They're not Trump fans over there and they cite quite a number of benefits.  But it's important to remember, it's the stage 1 deal, not the final deal.

Most of the tariffs stay in place even after the deal is signed, because it got promises on certain key points that have to be followed through on (like, reform of China's abusive intellectual property practices).

I know, not quite as sophisticated as flying a plane full of cash to Iran in exchange for a deal that barely slows nuclear development and has funded regional wars everywhere in the middle east, but we do the best we can.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: yossarian22c on February 13, 2020, 11:10:12 AM
yoss, I recommend reading the NYT write up on the first stage deal.  They're not Trump fans over there and they cite quite a number of benefits.  But it's important to remember, it's the stage 1 deal, not the final deal.

Most of the tariffs stay in place even after the deal is signed, because it got promises on certain key points that have to be followed through on (like, reform of China's abusive intellectual property practices).

Okay, I'll take a look. Most of the reports I saw focused on the increased purchase of American goods and said the structural changes (IP and other abusive trade practices) were largely left out. I did know some tariffs were in place but some were reduced a little and no new ones were getting put in place.

But as I said before, I'm on board with Chinese tariffs. I just wish there had been a strong push to get the EU, Canada, and others on board with us.

Chinese trade is the one area I actually largely align with Trump. But I would really like to see him go further in getting congress to pass tariffs (or give tariff authorization to the president) based solely off of labor practices, income, environmental concerns, and other abusive trade practices. Maybe the world descends into a tariff/protectionist fueled recession but I don't think its likely. Our strongest partners wouldn't be affected - maybe we could even get a few on board. Maybe that means prices go up at Wal-Mart but in the long run we'll have a healthier economy.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Seriati on February 13, 2020, 11:45:23 AM
yoss, the thing is the World is already a giant morass of aggressive protectionism.  The "secret" lie is that it's not.  The U.S. position to not be protectionist is more unique than we understand.   The idea that a tariff is "wrong" but that a local ownership law or tax law that has 10-20 times the financial impact or more is not "part of a trade war" is a big part of why it's been a mess.

And that was part of the point served by Trump's position.  To fight back against the real trade wars that the press/government has pretended aren't going on.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDrake on February 13, 2020, 12:00:40 PM
Quote
That's an interesting argument.  You seem to believe that a doctorate made them an expert in real world application of business principals, rather than recognizing that a real world business person saw things in a way that apparently didn't show up in the text books all those doctors learned from.

I mean seriously, what percentage of new companies have as a founder a phd in economics?  Some, but far far less than should be the case if that doctorate actually translated to real world success.

It's amusing that you think "running a business" translates into macroeconomic theory, or that somehow people who make it their life's work to study every country, every currency, and every policy are not successful because they don't have boatloads of entrepreneurial cash.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Seriati on February 13, 2020, 01:32:37 PM
I think's interesting that you project and reinterpret what I actually said rather than confront it.  I think anyone that's ever graduated can tell you that while they learned useful skills in college much of what they do in the real world was learned outside of school.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDrake on February 13, 2020, 01:43:11 PM
Not when it comes to theory. Going with your gut doesn't cut it for complex systems. It requires rigorous analysis. Sure, most of my engineering knowledge came from outside school. School taught me how to perform the analysis and apply it to new situations. There are lots of successful entrepreneurs who find something that works for their business, they might know their own niche well. But they wouldn't be able to walk into an entirely different situation and break it down using a systematic approach, they'd have to learn by trial and error all over again.

That's what Trump is doing, and has done. He successfully developed residential and office buildings and thought that would translate into running casinos, redesigning golf courses, producing training programs, and selling steaks. It didn't. Now he's monkeying with fundamental economic forces through a lens of how he did real estate, and it's not good.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Wayward Son on February 13, 2020, 03:45:32 PM
Quote
Fact is, Trump told you what he was doing and why, and got the results he told you he would get.  I think that means those who continue to pretend he didn't know what he was doing are the ones with the simplistic and naive understanding.

Baloney.

If I said that I raised a yellow flag every morning so that the sun would rise, because the sun follows the flag, you would call it simplistic and naive (not to mention other adjectives :) ).

And if I came back at you and said, "I told you what I was doing and why, and got the result I told you I would (the sun rising every morning)," you would laugh in my face.

So don't tell me just getting "the results he told you he would get" is anywhere near sufficient to prove that he isn't simplistic and naive.  Correlation does not prove causation, especially when "the results" may not be all he says they are.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: wmLambert on February 13, 2020, 05:25:20 PM
...He successfully developed residential and office buildings and thought that would translate into running casinos, redesigning golf courses, producing training programs, and selling steaks. It didn't. Now he's monkeying with fundamental economic forces through a lens of how he did real estate, and it's not good.

Incorrect analysis. Anyone who can read architects' plans and the engineers' papers can easily follow them if they know what they are doing - and Trump certainly does. One of the things most relevant here is when he took over the park ice skating rink that the New York politicos were screwing up so badly. Trump immediately went to the best professional ice rink designers to get their input. He simply did what they advised and saved the project way under time and under cost.

I remember when my son was asked to bid on the construction of a new Ferris-wheel type casino in Vegas, that many CMs refused to bid on. He just said, the architects and engineers have all the details down on paper. All you need do is start at the bottom and folow the plan with good subs who know their portion of the job.

To my thinking, that is a great recommendation for a political leader to follow. I remember when Rockefeller was running for President and he was asked why he was so successful. He said he simply surrounded himself with his betters.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on February 13, 2020, 05:42:47 PM
Quote
That's an interesting argument.  You seem to believe that a doctorate made them an expert in real world application of business principals, rather than recognizing that a real world business person saw things in a way that apparently didn't show up in the text books all those doctors learned from.

I mean seriously, what percentage of new companies have as a founder a phd in economics?  Some, but far far less than should be the case if that doctorate actually translated to real world success.

It's amusing that you think "running a business" translates into macroeconomic theory, or that somehow people who make it their life's work to study every country, every currency, and every policy are not successful because they don't have boatloads of entrepreneurial cash.

It's noticeable that you're always going to "theory" and "hypotheticals".
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDrake on February 13, 2020, 06:08:53 PM
Yes, theory is important. You can hack a program together and make it work, but if you understand information theory you'll be a lot better at it.

You might be able to play poker using rules of thumb and reading people, but you'll be a lot better at it if you at least memorize the odds. Better still if you can derive where those odds came from, and then you can apply it to all kinds of card and dice games.

Quote
To my thinking, that is a great recommendation for a political leader to follow. I remember when Rockefeller was running for President and he was asked why he was so successful. He said he simply surrounded himself with his betters.

This is true. Does it sound like Trump's style though, when he knows more than his generals do?
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on February 13, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
Yeah, but when you keep losing money at the tables maybe you should get out of theory and into real world.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDrake on February 13, 2020, 07:32:24 PM
There's a good reason why I don't play poker, the math doesn't really drive success. I do play blackjack, though, because the theory behind basic strategy and card counting works. There's a reason why it was a bunch of MIT students that broke the game more than anybody else previously.

In macroeconomics, math rules the day.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: ScottF on February 14, 2020, 09:58:12 AM
There's a good reason why I don't play poker, the math doesn't really drive success.

True, but poker success tends to be more consistent at the tournament level. There are certainly some math/odds rules in play but in general, it's bluff-driven with a healthy dose of luck thrown in.

I learned years ago that there's a secret question you can ask Vegas blackjack dealers if you're ever not sure whether to stay or hit: "what does the book say?"

They can't technically tell you what to do, but blackjack is all math, and they *will* tell you if the math (ie the book) says you should stay on 14 if the dealer is showing a 6. Plus dealers have no free will, which means the math will always be in effect.

Dealers also want you to win, because it usually means more tips for them.


Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Seriati on February 14, 2020, 11:35:30 AM
There's a good reason why I don't play poker, the math doesn't really drive success. I do play blackjack, though, because the theory behind basic strategy and card counting works. There's a reason why it was a bunch of MIT students that broke the game more than anybody else previously.

In macroeconomics, math rules the day.

And I think this post is revealing in ways you didn't intend.  Poker and Blackjack are both games created by humans to be simple enough to teach someone while they're playing. They're random enough that even a beginner can win, and complex enough that one can lose even after being an expert.  There's no question you can use math to put the odds relatively modestly  in your favor, and over time that will mean success.

But think about the fact that you favor Blackjack and why you said you favor it, the math drives the success.  What's the big difference?  In Blackjack you're playing against the house and the deck and the statistical probabilities are fixed, the House even has to follow fixed rules.  Sure other player decisions may alter the statistics before your turn, but ultimately you can still know exactly what the best play is when it's your turn.

Poker on the other hand is played against people.  You may know everything about the statistical probabilities of the cards in each players hand, but if you can't read the people playing, or worse yet if they can read you, you're gonna lose big or win much smaller than the straight probabilities.

Now ask yourself, whether the global economy is more like Blackjack, with simple rules and options the "other side's" options openly revealed and limited, or is it more like poker, where the individual player decisions and personalities are often more relevant than the straight math. 

We were in the position we were in because we were playing Blackjack in a poker world.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: LetterRip on February 14, 2020, 12:02:54 PM
Actually poker can be pure math - with zero need for 'reading your opponent'.  Top professionals and computers can play close to 'game theoretically optimal' (GTO) - where you use a fixed strategy and unless your opponent is also playing GTO, you will win over the long run.

Libratus can beat any poker pro in the world, but it is following a fixed GTO strategy and doesn't vary its play at all based on the opponent - it only considers the current hand action history, board texture, and its own hole cards.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: ScottF on February 14, 2020, 12:57:49 PM
Actually poker can be pure math - with zero need for 'reading your opponent'.  Top professionals and computers can play close to 'game theoretically optimal' (GTO) - where you use a fixed strategy and unless your opponent is also playing GTO, you will win over the long run.

Libratus can beat any poker pro in the world, but it is following a fixed GTO strategy and doesn't vary its play at all based on the opponent - it only considers the current hand action history, board texture, and its own hole cards.

Hadn't heard about this AI so looked it up real quick. It's interesting. You're actually incorrect when you say it "doesn't vary its play at all based on the opponent". It absolutely observed check/raise/fold patterns of it's opponents and incorporated the psychological patterns it was observing into its decisions.

So while an AI may succeed in factoring math alongside behavior patterns, the idea that poker can be pure math for humans is not true.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: TheDrake on February 14, 2020, 02:38:28 PM
Quote
We were in the position we were in because we were playing Blackjack in a poker world.

So we should just make wild all-in holdem bets and hope nobody calls our bluff? Ouch.

The other way in which the global economy is more like Blackjack is that you don't have to make the other players lose in order to win. Poker is the ultimate zero sum game. You have to make everybody else lose in order to win, and that's not how the global economy functions.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Seriati on February 14, 2020, 03:32:39 PM
Actually poker can be pure math - with zero need for 'reading your opponent'.  Top professionals and computers can play close to 'game theoretically optimal' (GTO) - where you use a fixed strategy and unless your opponent is also playing GTO, you will win over the long run.

Libratus can beat any poker pro in the world, but it is following a fixed GTO strategy and doesn't vary its play at all based on the opponent - it only considers the current hand action history, board texture, and its own hole cards.

Lol, but why other than for amusement would they play it?  Is Libratus looking to gain wealth for some purpose?  Or is this an analogy to the terminator style AI  overlords that will control us in the future?

I never said that math and analytics don't have a role.  I said the opinions of economists that are trained on models may leave much to be desired in real world application.  That should be self evident when you get "consensus" opinions based on the math that don't hold up in the real world (almost always because the person who constructed the mathematical model left something out or missed a detail).

In any event, I would suspect a Libratus computer with a true learning AI that had a goal of maximizing US wealth, wouldn't have come up with our prior economic policies, nor would it advocate those the professors endorse. 

Interestingly, we may get to find out, it's pretty clear that the Chinese are absolutely committed to being the first to practical quantum computing and true AI, and since they deliberately blend their military, strategic and commercial interests on a country wide basis (whereas, we ruthlessly separate ours), you can expect them to deploy that tech in service of their global trade goals (which are to supress everyone else).
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: LetterRip on February 14, 2020, 03:56:10 PM
Hadn't heard about this AI so looked it up real quick. It's interesting. You're actually incorrect when you say it "doesn't vary its play at all based on the opponent".

I was refering to 'opponent modeling' where over a series of hands you learn an opponents playing style and weaknesses and seek to exploit their mistakes.

Quote
It absolutely observed check/raise/fold patterns of it's opponents and incorporated the psychological patterns it was observing into its decisions.

Reread what I wrote,  "it only considers the current hand action history, board texture, and its own hole cards." and bet sizing.  It doesn't use 'psychological' at all.  It doesn't know anything at all about the opponent except the actions in the current hand.  Any action string describing the hand will give the same probability distribution regardless of the specific opponent or the hand history with that opponent.

Quote
So while an AI may succeed in factoring math alongside behavior patterns, the idea that poker can be pure math for humans is not true.

No it doesn't use 'patterns' it is all based on solving extremely large game trees for GTO using purely self play simulation.

Also humans can indeed do so - you can learn an approximate GTO strategy that will beat all but the best of humans, it just won't be good enough to beat a better GTO approximation like Libratus.  (Dom has a GTO training app 'DTO Poker Trainer' for no limit tournament hold'em that is extremely good - https://www.dto.poker/ - note that GTO for tournments is not the same solution as GTO for cash games since in tournments chip value varies with stack size).

Of course GTO isn't as profitable against bad humans as exploitative play based on opponent modeling (ie villain CBets too much on this flop texture, and then folds too many turns - so exploit by floating the flop, then donk the turn).
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Fenring on February 17, 2020, 11:28:09 PM
We were in the position we were in because we were playing Blackjack in a poker world.

I would alter this. We are in this position because some people think they are playing Blackjack against the house while others are playing poker against them, in a world that is supposed to be a co-op game but since you bought it on Ebay it didn't come with an instruction manual and everyone is trying to figure out the rules with different motives.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: ScottF on March 30, 2020, 01:04:28 AM
Older thread but just watched this tonight. I thought it was really great. As in thoroughly entertaining. Both left and right were equally portrayed as caricatures and I actually laughed at various times.

Rent/watch this if you’re looking to enjoy some ridiculous (and gory) escapism.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on March 30, 2020, 08:00:45 AM
I actually had tickets for this but the theater was ordered closed down before the show date.

It seemed like it’s been somehow turned into a comedy.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: DonaldD on March 30, 2020, 08:08:24 AM
It was always a satire - it's just that snowflakes on the internet got hold of it* before people could actually see the movie.

(* "it" meaning their own ideas about the movie, as opposed to the movie itself, of course)
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on March 30, 2020, 09:00:11 AM
It was always a satire!  Right.

Quote
The Hunt is a 2020 American film, variously described as horror or thriller, directed by Craig Zobel and written by Nick Cuse and Damon Lindelof.

Can't memory hole these things as fast as you'd like it seems.

It was reworked as "satire" in the face of criticism. And now, it looks like it's been reworked into a comedy.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: DonaldD on March 30, 2020, 10:00:18 AM
It was always a satire!  Right.

Quote
The Hunt is a 2020 American film, variously described as horror or thriller, directed by Craig Zobel and written by Nick Cuse and Damon Lindelof.
Hmmm... you quoted the first sentence from Wikipedia, but left out the next 2:
Quote
The Hunt is a 2020 American film, variously described as horror or thriller,[a] directed by Craig Zobel and written by Nick Cuse and Damon Lindelof. The film stars Betty Gilpin, Ike Barinholtz, Amy Madigan, Emma Roberts, Ethan Suplee and Hilary Swank. Jason Blum serves as a producer under his Blumhouse Productions banner, along with Lindelof.[3] Both Zobel and Lindelof have said that the film serves as a satire on the profound political divide between the American left and right.[4]
Even if you ignore the producers' stated intent, the first sentence does not actually suggest that the movie is not a satire - many, many horror moves are also satirical - for instance, "Dawn of the Dead" and "Invasion of the Body Snatchers".
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on March 30, 2020, 04:38:21 PM
Let's look at what they were saying last summer.

Time Magazine:
Quote
Universal Pictures announced Saturday afternoon that it will cancel the release of its violent thriller movie The Hunt, following the prior decision to pause advertising it.

Variety:
Quote
Universal Pictures has canceled the release of its upcoming thriller “The Hunt.” The film was previously set to hit theaters Sept. 27.

Indiewire:
Quote
A group of wealthy elites kidnap people and hunt them for sport in a new horror from the mind of "The Leftovers" creator Damon Lindelof.

Rolling Stone:
Quote
Watch Elites Stalk Strangers for Sport in Wild New Trailer for 'The Hunt'. Horror film stars Hilary Swank, Emma Roberts, Ike Barinholtz, country musician Sturgill ...

If you want it to be a satire, go for it. It can be anything you want, even a slapstick comedy or a romantic chick-flick. I'll just go with what the majority of pop culture references we at the time. It's weird you care so much that it now be a comedy.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: DonaldD on March 30, 2020, 05:08:04 PM
It's not a comedy.  It's a horror and a satire.  I don't at all wonder why you are so invested in continuing to characterize it as a hit job by leftist Hollywood  on  rightists, but it is funny that you don't realize that the satire is so on point to your reaction and your need to make the movie itself into another example of your current partisan internecine war.

As an aside, l expect you do realize that most of those quotes don't actually support your position, and that regardless, a magazine's reaction to a trailer says little about the content of a movie.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 30, 2020, 06:33:37 PM
I thought it was hilarious. Almost all the jokes hit at least for me. Thanks for the recommendation. They're right that it was making fun of liberals more than anyone. If you like that you might like Tucker and Dale Versus Evil. People are so often just misunderstood. And the violence is so over the top it's just comedic, like Hot Shots Part Deux.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2020, 12:04:38 PM
Honestly not a movie I intend to see.  And not because of the politics, just don't really enjoy gore for it's own sake anymore. 

I think there's probably a good discussion hiding in what messages Hollywood really projects.  Overwhelming left politics, yet virtually all their movies have heros and other characters that violate the left's norms and are rewarded for it.  Oh they say the right words, but then they act contrary to those words.  You can see it with how they use guns and take the law into their own hands (in virtually every movie) rather than disarm and let the police handle it.  Or how, the hero is still rewarded for surprise kissing (ie, no affirmative consent) or even ignoring the heroine's mild protests and kissing her anyway, which - unless used as an object less - always leads to her melting into a relationship.

I don't know if anyone is watching HBO's Avenue Five, but I was struck by what one of the characters said (set in the future).  One of the male characters said, "I'm going to get me some sweet, sweet consent tonight."  Clearly playing off the enlightened left position of consent, yet actually still objectification in the way the character said it, and worse the character was effectively the punchline to be contrasted directly to the female character who was far more crass, direct and actually sexually active.  What's the message there?  That in the future wimps will be talking about consent?  Or is it just enough that the character socialized the concept, even if the message about it was mixed, to put the idea in the public mind (after all the female character is also designed to be mocked)? 
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: Crunch on April 01, 2020, 01:51:33 PM
Honestly not a movie I intend to see.  And not because of the politics, just don't really enjoy gore for it's own sake anymore. 

But it's a comedy. Look right upthread, you'll see. It always was, DonaldD has proven that.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: DonaldD on April 01, 2020, 02:42:17 PM
Interestingly, the only two people posting on this thread who have seen the actual movie describe it as either satirizing liberals as much as conservatives, or satirizing liberals more than conservatives.
Title: Re: The Hunt
Post by: wmLambert on April 01, 2020, 09:25:51 PM
...But it's a comedy.

Being a comedy does not make a bad movie good.

My parents' generation always talks about how the dialog was so much better in their day. There's something to that. Since that day, the equation for making profitable films has moved toward action, gore, and sex. Me, I prefer a great film like, "They Might Be Giants," the George C. Scott and Joanne Woodward 1971 movie with some of the greatest character actors in Hollywood. Then there are the great musicals, like "The Music Man," "The Sound of Music," "Singing In The Rain," or "Calamity Jane."

Being somewhat in the industry for 17 years as an Animation Director and Producer, I saw every new release that came out for many years, with the point of view of production values and craftsmanship. I would sit in the right place in the theater to take advantage of the cinematographer's favored lens. Some of the most vaunted films were pretty bad. But that must be another thread.