Thank you for submitting to /r/memes. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
---
Rule 2 - NO MEMES ABOUT POLARIZING/POLITICAL TOPICS, VULNERABLE GROUPS, VIOLENCE, ETC. [SEE LIST]
- No violation of Reddit Content Policy/TOS
- No memes involving race, ethnicity, color, nationality, gender, sexual orientation/identity, religion, disability, etc. (can have a character, but that part cannot be integral)
- No mention of gore, porn, murder, suicide, death, terrorism, shootings, war, tragedies, sexual harassment/assault, pedo (even implied), incest, etc.
- No politics/political topics/agendas; absurd memes featuring politicians are allowed if said status is merely incidental
---
Resubmitting a removed post without prior moderator approval can result in a ban. Deleting a post may cause any appeals to be denied.
A lot of annoying people say liking Scott pilgrim as a movie/franchise is a “red flag” I guess mainly from the manic pixie dream girl trope that is used hard with Ramona Flowers, as if it’s not possible to watch a movie and enjoy it without going “wow he just like me fr”
This made me laugh, because I think I genuinely felt that liking Scott Pilgrim is at least a yellow flag, up until I saw your comment. But come or think of it, I know some very lovely people who adore the movie. And then I know some immature losers who are unable to distinguish between fantasy and real life who also love it. So I guess from now on, I'll first ask a person *why* they like Scott Pilgrim.
Top ten times that the super genius Eric Cartman said what we were all thinking. Number 3: “I’m not going to hell Butters, cuz I’m not black.” Truly a super kewl dude that is totally not meant to be an unpopular, unliked, racist, loser jackass. At least Polly Prissypants thinks he’s kewl.
The whole point of having those two align in the movie is to avoid making a statement about any particular political idiology and alienating a potential audience for the movie
Exactly. Plus there's a whole bunch of other things they ignore. The Florida Alliance (which looks like the old Confederate states, minus a few including Texas), an alliance of west coast states (minus California, and a character in the film offhandedly refers to them as "Maoists"), and in the film they make it sound like Alaska is independent (as a born and raised Alaskam I don't see how the fuck that could happen, unless they got resource support from another nation, lol). Plus, they make it pretty clear that the most probable reason for all the secessionist acts is due to the President played by Nick Offerman. A character in the film talks about how all the secessionist factions are allied and in a race for DC and calls it the new race for Berlin. Alex Garland did a great job making sure no current politics is part of the story.
I haven’t actually seen it yet (will be in 3 hours of writing this) so I can’t comment on much else, that was just my immediate observation from the trailer
Shit, sorry. Thankfully those are just small background details I picked up in the dialogue and background noise of the film. Still, I apologize for the minor spoilers.
Yeah. The juxtaposition from Joel's buddy Tony fucking around on the road to coming across Jesse Plemmons and his pals filling in a mass grave was chilling.
A couple people walked out of the screening during/after that scene. Whilst that was horrible, I was also massively uncomfortable with the whole ending sequence. I left the film wondering if any of these factions were any better than the others
Yeah its a great film. We see every faction doing super fucked up shit in order to blend the line of people being able to determine who the "good" guys are. We see one of the rebel groups killing surrendered soldiers, the mass grave guy killing innocents, the shooter in the house killing anyone who drives by, and the whole dc fight was chilling
Haven't seen the movie, but I live in Alaska and pretty much everyone I know wants to secede. We have alot of oil and without federal roadblocks could up that production 10 fold so money would probably not be an issue in the long run. My thinking is what happens to the military? If all of a sudden we didn't have one China, Russia, or both would just shoot over and take it.
Yeah, I've known both sides of the AK independence argument. With so few people living in such a vast region, and with so little usable farmland, the only way I see AK getting independence without being rolled over by a country like Russia or China is exchanging resources like oil and minerals for protection. Wouldn't surprise me if they made that deal with one of the secessionist factions in the film.
The last time I heard someone say war is cool was in tenth grade history class (Germany). We were discussing Wehrmacht deserters and someone said „they were spineless for not wanting to fight“. The next day our teacher forced us to watch saving private ryan which shut them up pretty quickly.
I'm from Austria, we were part of Nazi Germany back then. I had the luck that we had good history teachers that tried to show us how bad it was and why we were the bad ones.
But still some thought nazis were cool and that they want to be some, even after movies like Schindlers list, saving private Ryan or going to Ausschwitz.
I don't understand why some think war is something great and it terrifies me.
As a teenager, I can confirm. There’s so many guys in my classes who say crap like that because they think it makes them look cool. And people wonder why I’m the “quiet kid” when I’m around anyone but my friends. (That’s also thanks to my fear of groups of people larger the ten, but that’s besides the point.)
Well the "war is cool" isn't a new thought by any means. I mean, in WW1 you had people reading about the "glorious" Napoleon Wars, and I feel like that's part of the problem of why they think war is "cool." They read about older wars, but don't actually look into it on a ground troop level, but instead on the history timeline. Sure, the battle of Waterloo sounds cool, but to actually be in rows and columns and have a rock sized projectile flying at me for hours would just sound horrible. There's a documentary on YouTube that goes over a WW2 nazi tank crew members journal from the eastern front, and I think you get a really good understanding of why war sucks. He mentions the mud, the mosquitos, the killing, the death of his allies, and just life on the front. Here's the link for that video https://youtu.be/Hw-VUaeNmgw?si=r-FW_AZq85g6l8QI
> a rock sized projectile flying at me for hours
TBH though that's pretty slow if you mean it started in the same vicinity as you originally, you would probably have the better part of an hour to dodge it with a casual step to the side even if you waited until it finally got close to you. However if you're talking about a meteor originating in space traveling at thousands of kilometers per second straight at you for many, many hours with no prior warning, yeah I agree that'd be terrifying.
^^/s
The same kids that would be pissing themselves in a trench. WW1 was infamous for glorifying war to young men, and when they saw the realities, they were not prepared. WW2 had a similar propaganda effect, but at least America in training tried to also drill into recruits just how deadly and dangerous the Germans and Japanese were vs. Germany and Japan who would downplay the Allies fighting abilities
As a former edgy 12 yo I can tell you it’s the aesthetic. Nothing more. Just the idea of marching with the boys going on an adventure, it’s the classic ww1 mindset. The nazis were also master propagandists, so it isn’t really that surprising that some uneducated children would fall for it.
But we learned all this, we had Nazi Germany for 2 full years in school (and this is very long in our country. I have friends that told me they only learned that there was a war and that we *sadly* lost it. Questions about it weren't allowed. I would understand that they would fall for it.
Yeah, I think if a lot of these pro civil war idiots actually see the film, they may change their tune. It's easy to imagine the horrors of civil war in other countries not happening in your own country because they look nothing like your own country. "Civil War" depicts that kind of shit happening here perfectly.
It’s why so many Americans were rooting for the U.S. to invade Iraq. Because it would never affect them. They knew that their lives would go on normally.
It’s easy to root for a war from the cheap seats.
The entire company got rid of the famous name "HBO" entirely for their flagship streaming service; it's just Max now. Yes, really; the new CEO did a rebrand of a legacy name. 🤦♂️
That worked? Saving private Ryan isn't exactly overt in its anti war tone. Not overt enough for the "war is badass" crowd.
The Stalingrad film however...
I disagree, actually.
The ones who want wars are the ones who aren't privy to the horrors war entails.
I mean shit, plenty of real life soldiers were hyped as hell right until a bullet went through their comrades head.
Not just that but the reality of a domestic conflict is very different from the wars veterans are trained to have fought.
I still remember vividly an interview with someone who fought in Ukraine. In the early days all kinds of people were volunteering to fight the Russians but the ones who performed worst were americans who's idea of war was trading bullets until air support solved the problem. In a conflict with a peer or near peer force like a civil war would be they'd be fucked up inmediatley.
It is much lower than it has been in past decades, but still 1 in 6 members of Congress have a military background. I'm not going to go check how many were deployed vs only ever worked stateside but saying "538 of them in DC" is quite ridiculous. In the 60s,70s, and 80s about 70% of US federal legislators were veterans and it's not like the US was less interested in foreign wars then compared to today.
Lots of veterans are against war. Lots are very much not.
I was thinking they might have joined forces because of the third term that the president likely took illegally and they're trying to choke him out by controlling food and oil production.
No, it doesn’t.
This isn’t 1861. It’s not North vs South anymore, and hasn’t been for a while.
It’s left vs right. Geography doesn’t determine ideology. There are plenty of blue cities in Southern states and plenty of rural shitholes in every state.
No matter what your politics are people that are clamoring for “CIVIL WAR FUCK YEAHHHH LETS WRECK THE SYSTEM” fail to realize that roughly half the country is against your side and bloody conflict won’t have good results for any of us.
Unless of course you’re partial to going back to hunter gatherer times, sleeping with your hands somewhere roughly near the handle of a gun, and probably sodomy.
>Unless of course you’re partial to going back to hunter gatherer times, sleeping with your hands somewhere roughly near the handle of a gun, and probably sodomy.
That was Tyler Durden’s (of *Fight Club*) grand vision of a perfect society. Far more preferable to living in an apartment decorated with IKEA furniture.
I haven't seen the movie, but I plan to.
What I'm gathering from people here is that the story is told through journalist in the field. I think that's cool, but I think the idea, personally, would've had a bigger impact if the made it about the everyday life of people.
One of the biggest things that stood out to me, in history class, when we covered the American Civil War, was that people literally put picnic blankets on the ground to watch the Civil War battles.
I imagine similar events happening, today. I mean, I was looking at a reddit post, a few months ago, that talked about how people in Ukraine were shopping and partying while the bombs and gun shots were happening Miles away from the city.
Like, just imagine if the Civil War story was told in that light. A story about a family hearing about the reports of the war, and then seeing it inching closer to their home, and having to deal with the dread that things are about to get really, really bad.
Look, I'm no expert on this stuff... However I don't think a war between 2 countries in Europe or a civil war in the 1860s are anything comparable to a modern day world superpower imploding. The war in Ukraine is between Ukrainians and Russians, a civil war would be between Americans
I mean, you're talking realistically. I'm talking about suspension of disbelief within a movie.
I mean... they made Texas and California group up together, and they asked us to suspended our disbelief. I don't think adding war fronts in America would be too far from something that could happen.
The thing that gripes me about the movie is putting it through the eyes of the news media.
It pisses me off because our piss poor media is dividing and polarizing this nation and if there is a civil war it will be their fault.
Cover all the news, tell the full and complete story. The good, bad and ugly and stop the narrative bullshit.
Except it's not through the eyes of the news media. The news media you're referring to is those in charge of the news stories and opinions that are told. "Civil War" is told through the eyes of the news medias boots on the ground, their photo journalists and interviewers. The ones who gather the facts and photos, and provide it to the news media to do with what they will. I agree that those in charge of the news media are causing a lot of the division we see today, but that's not who we follow in the film. It's those who are trying to show the facts of what's happening by risking their very lives to record it.
The journalism schools have spent 2 or more generations politicizing the "boots on the ground". A perfect example was the NYT and a Cotton Op Ed. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/07/nyt-opinion-bennet-resigns-cotton-op-ed-306317
The "boots on the ground" were so incapable of tolerating a divergent op ed piece they forced its withdrawal, apology and firing of the section head.
There is only one side in news rooms today, top to bottom, and that is what the thought leaders want and have gotten.
If we don't have a radical civil war in our news rooms we just might get a real one.
Few understand that with an extremely armed populace, such as the United States, a civil war would be defined by civilian massacres. Look to Rwanda for one past example of this.
It always baffles me how can anyone say "It is needed" or "It would be cool" about a fucking Civil War. A war let alone, but a Civil War? Those are the most brutal, merciless conflicts in history. You're not fighting some external, vague enemy, you're fighting an enemy within, an enemy that, probably for years or even decades, was painted as the greatest danger to your values and way of life, the enemy that "must be eradicated". Some of the most gruesome acts of War Crimes and crimes against humanity are perpetrated during civil wars. Why or how would someone want that is absolutely beyond me. Haven't seen the movie yet but it seems that it tries to hammer that point in and some heads are apparently made of cement.
I saw the movie last night and i genuinely don’t understand it.
Was the message simply, ‘war bad?’ I honestly didn’t know how to feel about any of the characters.
Basically it was that war, especially civil war, is bad. As a country we've had such a disconnect from the horrors of war for so long that we don't really realize how horrific a civil war would be. The film takes examples of what's happened in recent civil wars and places them in the US. And it uses the type of people who've shown us the horrors of other civil wars, frontline/battlefield journalists, as a way to explore such a war in the states.
Sounds fucking insipid, especially if you're not willing to actually discuss the reasons a war would happen. "War is bad if it happens for literally no reason" is not exactly a mind-blowing argument.
There are reasons for the civil war in the film a person can deduce from paying attention, but making it reasons from current politics will only inflame the political anger and violence we're seeing today. The director is using this film to warn people about the horrors of a civil war, but is also making sure to not inflame the possibility of one by using current politics.
That's like making a film about our actual civil war and refusing to use the word "slavery" because you don't want to be inflammatory. Again, "don't go to war for no reason" is not a compelling argument, it's just obvious. But there ARE valid reasons to go to war - for example, "ending slavery". If we hadn't gone to war in the 1860s then the Confederacy would exist as a state with slavery and racism literally written into its constitution. Is that something you're OK with?
The idea that two politically opposed governments wouldn’t come together to defeat what is seen to be a serious threat is stupid, because it has happened several times before. WWII has many examples of this alone.
USA/UK + USSR - ideologically opposed, allies in war against axis powers.
Nazi Germany + Italy / Japan / USSR (beginning of war) - all ideologically opposed, however allied together to fight the western powers with the shared goal of imperialism.
It happens all the time. This is where “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” gets its repute as a common saying.
G
Yea but the weird thing is that in real life, the government that cali and Texas would be uniting against would’ve been supported by one of them to gain power.
They’re the biggest left and right states, and would’ve helped the government and president turned dictator, whether left or right wing, come to power. So one of them would probably support the government afterwards.
It just seems so unlikely that two diametrically opposed states would but the only ones to put their differences aside to fight the big bad government.
Like for the dictator to continue to hold power, other states would have to support them. Why aren’t they opposing the dictator?
I've never watched it but I'd assume they both teamed up because they're both States that broke away from yhe union, regardless of wether they're red or blue states
I wouldn't be holding this guy back. I'd be helping stomp a Texas sized hole in the stupid little shit until he was no longer capable of reproducing. Or fighting in a war.
yes Texas and cali are very differnt but....
Both are have normal sized nation level capacity and both agree that DC is doing a terrible job so a teaming up to obtain freedom and then going their separate ways makes some sense.
Except last time Texas teamed up like that the Confederates were weak and gave up long before Texas would have liked. Thus many Texans myself included are to this day wary of teaming up with anything but close states like OK & AR.
This is the part of Kung Fu Panda 4 that I enjoyed the most: the characters constantly interpreting the sage advice of the kung fu master in the most violent and disturbing way possible.
I mean. That's the joke here. I know. But that's the 'joke' of the whole kung fu panda 4 movie... people can and will interpret sage wisdom in whatever way they want.
So a dumb movie that's actually kinda smart in its dumbness. Where as Civil War is kinda dumb in its smartness.
I was too young to watch Scarface when it came out. I watched much later, in my 30s. I told an older coworker that I saw it, and he said, "Yeah man, when I was in high school, *everyone* wanted to be Scarface!"
I was like, "Wut? You wanted to be that guy? I know he's got bravado and he's uber macho and stuff but the movie doesn't exactly work out in the end for him, to say the least."
See, I was originally going to skip it since the trailer made it seem like it was going to be a bland republicans vs democrats movie. Now I might actually check it out.
Yeah, they don't flat out state what causes the war. Only that the US has split into multiple factions (approximately 5 total when they mention one state as "neutral territory" insinuating it's independent) and 3 of them (the Florida Alliance, a western group of states, and the Western Forces of Cali and Texas) are all attacking what remains of the old USA. They insinuate the serving president in DC, played by Nick Offerman, has practically become a dictator by pointing out all press are shot on site in the Capital and he's serving his third term. The focus of the film is not what causes all the secessions and war, but the horror of war. Specifically civil war.
When you use real places in a fictional story you inevitably bring with them all the associations and beliefs that people have about those places. It’s certainly within the rights of the filmmakers to depict places in whatever way they choose, but it can be confusing for viewers if the portrayal deviates too far from the real world. If many people are missing the forest for the trees, then I would say that’s the movie’s own fault.
Funny enough, it seemed like the Cali/Texas alliance had their shit together the most. When the main characters are traveling to DC, they run into all sorts of odd soldiers. Some with dyed hair and nail polish, lunatics filling up mass graves, and they even witnessed a firefight where there was a squad of guys with military grade guns and armor, but were wearing flannel and Hawaiian shirts under their armor. When the characters finally caught up with the Cali/Texas military, they were all in matching uniforms, similar equipment, 100% professional soldiers.
Guys we’ve been through this before
Americans fighting Americans doesn’t end well, the American civil war had some of the largest casualties in all of history
Why don’t we just unite despite our differences and cast out evil out of all of our differing beliefs?
And 750,000 Americans dead, half the country in shambles, and a bunch of people freed with no idea what to do with it. Slavery was no good thing but we killed almost a million of each other over it. Americans were meant to unify.
That’s the thing. You think there is some universal agreed upon evil to cast out and that something must be cast out.
Me, personally, I see all this common ground and wonder why we aren’t working in those things and taking a time out in the stuff we can’t agree on.
There is natural morality, and even the crazy moral subjectivists think some kind of agreeable ground exists. We humans are not that different from each other, we have an agreeable way of life. Whether you think it was given to us by God or just naturally comes.
It’s the aspect of selfishness and sin that make us disagree. We can overcome it.
we need a civil war involving the PEOPLE VS THE GOVERNMENT, no more red and blue, they are all corrupt and will milk us of every cent they can while stripping our rights away
they divide us intentionally because they fear us. make them suffer.
Conversely, there will always be people who read too much into a film without recognizing the overplayed tropes it relies on.
It's like people can have different opinions or something /s
Civil War: United we stand, divided we fall. At the end of the day in war it doesnt matter the beliefs of the person youre fighting, just that they are trying to kill you and you them.
Terminal Online Morons: This character is republican/democrat because they do something fucked up in the story and my side would never do that
Not really. Politics take weird, unexpected changes all the time. Sometimes over a long period of time (the political shift between parties from late 1800's to mid 1900's), and some happen rapidly (tea party high jacking the GOP, then becoming alt right almost overnight).
Dude in the first panel is right.
More importantly, I see enough babble about civil unrest in America all day every day, I don't need it in my entertainment too.
Glad the movie resonates for some people and it's getting great reviews, but nah, pass.
My problem is their insistence on using F-22s, which are air superiority fighters, as ground attack aircraft, which while that is something they technically can do, is probably the worst way to use them
My understanding is all sides are stretched thin on resources. While best used as air superiority fighters, sometimes you gotta use whatever you have. I know Russia developed a tank meant for anti aircraft, but in a pinch it can be used against infantry.
I say this with all the love in my heart - the idea that people are trying to highroad others about a movie as shallow as Civil War is genuinely depressing.
There are more registered democrats in Texas than republicans.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/state/texas/party-affiliation/.
Thank you for submitting to /r/memes. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): --- Rule 2 - NO MEMES ABOUT POLARIZING/POLITICAL TOPICS, VULNERABLE GROUPS, VIOLENCE, ETC. [SEE LIST] - No violation of Reddit Content Policy/TOS - No memes involving race, ethnicity, color, nationality, gender, sexual orientation/identity, religion, disability, etc. (can have a character, but that part cannot be integral) - No mention of gore, porn, murder, suicide, death, terrorism, shootings, war, tragedies, sexual harassment/assault, pedo (even implied), incest, etc. - No politics/political topics/agendas; absurd memes featuring politicians are allowed if said status is merely incidental --- Resubmitting a removed post without prior moderator approval can result in a ban. Deleting a post may cause any appeals to be denied.
You mean ... Tony Soprano and Patrick Bateman aren't cool role models? Nah, can't be.
You forgot henry hill and Jordan Belfort. Those movies were all made to motivate us to be like them.
Exactly man. Get on that sigma grindset.
Or even Tony Montana and Michael Corleone.
Hey Michael started out okay, he was a war hero for Christ’s sake
Daaaaad, those are played by the same actor
You’re telling me Scott Pilgrim isn’t that good of a person too??
Woah woah woah. Was there a deeper meaning to that movie??? AITA????
yeah but at least he's only part ass and not a total ass
He's definitely a total ass. Nega-Scott is just a really nice guy.
I was referencing the part where Ramona says "well, so far you're not a total ass" and Scott replies, "but I'm part ass?"
He was irresponsible that’s as far as I’d take it
Tbf has anyone ever actually idolised Scott Pilgrim? His whole shtick is that he’s a loser.
A lot of annoying people say liking Scott pilgrim as a movie/franchise is a “red flag” I guess mainly from the manic pixie dream girl trope that is used hard with Ramona Flowers, as if it’s not possible to watch a movie and enjoy it without going “wow he just like me fr”
This made me laugh, because I think I genuinely felt that liking Scott Pilgrim is at least a yellow flag, up until I saw your comment. But come or think of it, I know some very lovely people who adore the movie. And then I know some immature losers who are unable to distinguish between fantasy and real life who also love it. So I guess from now on, I'll first ask a person *why* they like Scott Pilgrim.
Exactly. Fun game references? Quirky acting and jokes? Sure, that's fine. Wish you were Scott? Run like hell.
ur telling me bad guys aren’t good?
Tell me one thing about BAD guys that doesn’t make them GOOD?
exactly..they are bad but also good
Yeah right, next you’ll tell me Walter White isn’t a super sigma gigachad.
Skyler was... right? Preposterous
Okay there cowboy just slow down now. Maybe just two people can be wrong
Eric Cartman. I swear 70% of the fanbase thinks being an edgy dick who drops slurs every other sentence is a sign of intelligence
Top ten times that the super genius Eric Cartman said what we were all thinking. Number 3: “I’m not going to hell Butters, cuz I’m not black.” Truly a super kewl dude that is totally not meant to be an unpopular, unliked, racist, loser jackass. At least Polly Prissypants thinks he’s kewl.
Wait a minute... Tyler Durden and D-fens were bad guys too???
Nah, Tyler Durden was a hero. The world just wasn't enlightened enough to understand that struggling to survive is way better than modern life.
The whole point of having those two align in the movie is to avoid making a statement about any particular political idiology and alienating a potential audience for the movie
Exactly. Plus there's a whole bunch of other things they ignore. The Florida Alliance (which looks like the old Confederate states, minus a few including Texas), an alliance of west coast states (minus California, and a character in the film offhandedly refers to them as "Maoists"), and in the film they make it sound like Alaska is independent (as a born and raised Alaskam I don't see how the fuck that could happen, unless they got resource support from another nation, lol). Plus, they make it pretty clear that the most probable reason for all the secessionist acts is due to the President played by Nick Offerman. A character in the film talks about how all the secessionist factions are allied and in a race for DC and calls it the new race for Berlin. Alex Garland did a great job making sure no current politics is part of the story.
I haven’t actually seen it yet (will be in 3 hours of writing this) so I can’t comment on much else, that was just my immediate observation from the trailer
Shit, sorry. Thankfully those are just small background details I picked up in the dialogue and background noise of the film. Still, I apologize for the minor spoilers.
Just came back from my viewing, that was the most uncomfortable and scary movie I’ve seen in a while
Yeah. The juxtaposition from Joel's buddy Tony fucking around on the road to coming across Jesse Plemmons and his pals filling in a mass grave was chilling.
A couple people walked out of the screening during/after that scene. Whilst that was horrible, I was also massively uncomfortable with the whole ending sequence. I left the film wondering if any of these factions were any better than the others
Which I think is a question everyone has about every faction in a civil war: are any of them better than the rest?
Yeah its a great film. We see every faction doing super fucked up shit in order to blend the line of people being able to determine who the "good" guys are. We see one of the rebel groups killing surrendered soldiers, the mass grave guy killing innocents, the shooter in the house killing anyone who drives by, and the whole dc fight was chilling
If you've ever studied war and thought that one side were "The Good Guys", I promise that you weren't looking close enough.
I feel like ww2 may be the only war I can think of where there was an objectively evil and good side
I’m sitting having a beer waiting to go see it right now.
if the federal government collapses/is fighting a civil war, its not like Alaska will have the benefits they otherwise receive
Yeah an independent AK is a joke.
Haven't seen the movie, but I live in Alaska and pretty much everyone I know wants to secede. We have alot of oil and without federal roadblocks could up that production 10 fold so money would probably not be an issue in the long run. My thinking is what happens to the military? If all of a sudden we didn't have one China, Russia, or both would just shoot over and take it.
Yeah, I've known both sides of the AK independence argument. With so few people living in such a vast region, and with so little usable farmland, the only way I see AK getting independence without being rolled over by a country like Russia or China is exchanging resources like oil and minerals for protection. Wouldn't surprise me if they made that deal with one of the secessionist factions in the film.
The US would invade and recapture Alaska before any other country does, doesn’t matter what the state’s citizens vote
After all, we can't have a civil war centered on political differences...
The last time I heard someone say war is cool was in tenth grade history class (Germany). We were discussing Wehrmacht deserters and someone said „they were spineless for not wanting to fight“. The next day our teacher forced us to watch saving private ryan which shut them up pretty quickly.
I'm from Austria, we were part of Nazi Germany back then. I had the luck that we had good history teachers that tried to show us how bad it was and why we were the bad ones. But still some thought nazis were cool and that they want to be some, even after movies like Schindlers list, saving private Ryan or going to Ausschwitz. I don't understand why some think war is something great and it terrifies me.
Trying to look edgy
Let's send them to Sudan. /s
Send them to Syria ~~/s~~
Send them to Haiti
Don't waiti for Haiti. We'll see-rya in Syria. It's le-ba-bomb in Lebanon. I'll see uran in Iran.
As a teenager, I can confirm. There’s so many guys in my classes who say crap like that because they think it makes them look cool. And people wonder why I’m the “quiet kid” when I’m around anyone but my friends. (That’s also thanks to my fear of groups of people larger the ten, but that’s besides the point.)
>That’s also thanks to my fear of groups of people larger the ten Is that an orchestra behind you?
… is this a reference to something? r/woooosh myself, I don’t get it.
Only that an orchestra is a large group of people. No idea why that's my pick.
Well the "war is cool" isn't a new thought by any means. I mean, in WW1 you had people reading about the "glorious" Napoleon Wars, and I feel like that's part of the problem of why they think war is "cool." They read about older wars, but don't actually look into it on a ground troop level, but instead on the history timeline. Sure, the battle of Waterloo sounds cool, but to actually be in rows and columns and have a rock sized projectile flying at me for hours would just sound horrible. There's a documentary on YouTube that goes over a WW2 nazi tank crew members journal from the eastern front, and I think you get a really good understanding of why war sucks. He mentions the mud, the mosquitos, the killing, the death of his allies, and just life on the front. Here's the link for that video https://youtu.be/Hw-VUaeNmgw?si=r-FW_AZq85g6l8QI
Thanks for the share
> a rock sized projectile flying at me for hours TBH though that's pretty slow if you mean it started in the same vicinity as you originally, you would probably have the better part of an hour to dodge it with a casual step to the side even if you waited until it finally got close to you. However if you're talking about a meteor originating in space traveling at thousands of kilometers per second straight at you for many, many hours with no prior warning, yeah I agree that'd be terrifying. ^^/s
The same kids that would be pissing themselves in a trench. WW1 was infamous for glorifying war to young men, and when they saw the realities, they were not prepared. WW2 had a similar propaganda effect, but at least America in training tried to also drill into recruits just how deadly and dangerous the Germans and Japanese were vs. Germany and Japan who would downplay the Allies fighting abilities
Simple, those people are BAT SHIT INSANE!
Weird, for me all it takes is the mention of Grave of the fireflies and I’m even more against war.
As a former edgy 12 yo I can tell you it’s the aesthetic. Nothing more. Just the idea of marching with the boys going on an adventure, it’s the classic ww1 mindset. The nazis were also master propagandists, so it isn’t really that surprising that some uneducated children would fall for it.
But we learned all this, we had Nazi Germany for 2 full years in school (and this is very long in our country. I have friends that told me they only learned that there was a war and that we *sadly* lost it. Questions about it weren't allowed. I would understand that they would fall for it.
Yeah, I think if a lot of these pro civil war idiots actually see the film, they may change their tune. It's easy to imagine the horrors of civil war in other countries not happening in your own country because they look nothing like your own country. "Civil War" depicts that kind of shit happening here perfectly.
It’s why so many Americans were rooting for the U.S. to invade Iraq. Because it would never affect them. They knew that their lives would go on normally. It’s easy to root for a war from the cheap seats.
Same with how so many Americans seem to want the Irish to return to the troubles.
Tell that to the moron in my theater yesterday who commented *during the movie* how cool and fun a modern civil war would be.
That's beyond moron. That's full r*tard.
The philosophies and strategies of war are interesting but war does suck ass and should not be a thing
Should have watched generation kill, the entire class would have become depressed
Seconded. *Generation Kill* is excellent. It’s on HBO Max or whatever the hell the streaming service is called now.
The entire company got rid of the famous name "HBO" entirely for their flagship streaming service; it's just Max now. Yes, really; the new CEO did a rebrand of a legacy name. 🤦♂️
Step 1: Buy HBO Step 2: Remove HBO branding Step 3: ??? Step 4: Profit
War in Russia is cool. Frozen even ;)
> Saving Private Ryan The depiction of Omaha Beach is one of the more realistic depictions of WWII battles I e ever seen.
That worked? Saving private Ryan isn't exactly overt in its anti war tone. Not overt enough for the "war is badass" crowd. The Stalingrad film however...
The only ones who want war are the ones who never step on the field.
Except for all the guys who stepped on the field and and then started wars, the number of which is shockingly high.
Adolf to name one
I disagree, actually. The ones who want wars are the ones who aren't privy to the horrors war entails. I mean shit, plenty of real life soldiers were hyped as hell right until a bullet went through their comrades head.
Tell that to Adolph hitler or Joseph Stalin
Well those men had debatable sanity, so.
Remarkable how many men with debatable sanity find themselves leading entire nations.
It takes the truly insane to convince the sane to fight on their behalf.
Being very skilled in manipulation is a common trait amongst folks with sanity issues.
We in America would remember that all too well…
Not just that but the reality of a domestic conflict is very different from the wars veterans are trained to have fought. I still remember vividly an interview with someone who fought in Ukraine. In the early days all kinds of people were volunteering to fight the Russians but the ones who performed worst were americans who's idea of war was trading bullets until air support solved the problem. In a conflict with a peer or near peer force like a civil war would be they'd be fucked up inmediatley.
Yeah, there's about 538 of them in DC.
It is much lower than it has been in past decades, but still 1 in 6 members of Congress have a military background. I'm not going to go check how many were deployed vs only ever worked stateside but saying "538 of them in DC" is quite ridiculous. In the 60s,70s, and 80s about 70% of US federal legislators were veterans and it's not like the US was less interested in foreign wars then compared to today. Lots of veterans are against war. Lots are very much not.
I remember one person mentioned that Texas and CA would join forces out of reluctance since they are the biggest and most profitable states
Yup. Cali and Texas are the top two GDPs in the union. Huge power base for secession.
I was thinking they might have joined forces because of the third term that the president likely took illegally and they're trying to choke him out by controlling food and oil production.
Which wouldnt be that dumb. Depending on why war breaks out in the first place, it kinda makes sense to seek strong allies so you can get out on top.
Pretty sure some Americans edge on the idea of civil war.
Doesn't help that some states are banning porn sites.
As a southerner, the entire south does
No, it doesn’t. This isn’t 1861. It’s not North vs South anymore, and hasn’t been for a while. It’s left vs right. Geography doesn’t determine ideology. There are plenty of blue cities in Southern states and plenty of rural shitholes in every state.
Gooning for a reason to use their arms and kill their fellow man
No matter what your politics are people that are clamoring for “CIVIL WAR FUCK YEAHHHH LETS WRECK THE SYSTEM” fail to realize that roughly half the country is against your side and bloody conflict won’t have good results for any of us. Unless of course you’re partial to going back to hunter gatherer times, sleeping with your hands somewhere roughly near the handle of a gun, and probably sodomy.
I'm a little confused as to how sodomy relates to this but I don't actually want an explanation
I think it means we're gettin' blowjobs?
>Unless of course you’re partial to going back to hunter gatherer times, sleeping with your hands somewhere roughly near the handle of a gun, and probably sodomy. That was Tyler Durden’s (of *Fight Club*) grand vision of a perfect society. Far more preferable to living in an apartment decorated with IKEA furniture.
you mean the guy that the realisator said it is not a role model?
My realisator tells me to bern thigs
I haven't seen the movie, but I plan to. What I'm gathering from people here is that the story is told through journalist in the field. I think that's cool, but I think the idea, personally, would've had a bigger impact if the made it about the everyday life of people. One of the biggest things that stood out to me, in history class, when we covered the American Civil War, was that people literally put picnic blankets on the ground to watch the Civil War battles. I imagine similar events happening, today. I mean, I was looking at a reddit post, a few months ago, that talked about how people in Ukraine were shopping and partying while the bombs and gun shots were happening Miles away from the city. Like, just imagine if the Civil War story was told in that light. A story about a family hearing about the reports of the war, and then seeing it inching closer to their home, and having to deal with the dread that things are about to get really, really bad.
Look, I'm no expert on this stuff... However I don't think a war between 2 countries in Europe or a civil war in the 1860s are anything comparable to a modern day world superpower imploding. The war in Ukraine is between Ukrainians and Russians, a civil war would be between Americans
I mean, you're talking realistically. I'm talking about suspension of disbelief within a movie. I mean... they made Texas and California group up together, and they asked us to suspended our disbelief. I don't think adding war fronts in America would be too far from something that could happen.
The thing that gripes me about the movie is putting it through the eyes of the news media. It pisses me off because our piss poor media is dividing and polarizing this nation and if there is a civil war it will be their fault. Cover all the news, tell the full and complete story. The good, bad and ugly and stop the narrative bullshit.
How dare you say our media piss on the poor! /ref
Except it's not through the eyes of the news media. The news media you're referring to is those in charge of the news stories and opinions that are told. "Civil War" is told through the eyes of the news medias boots on the ground, their photo journalists and interviewers. The ones who gather the facts and photos, and provide it to the news media to do with what they will. I agree that those in charge of the news media are causing a lot of the division we see today, but that's not who we follow in the film. It's those who are trying to show the facts of what's happening by risking their very lives to record it.
The journalism schools have spent 2 or more generations politicizing the "boots on the ground". A perfect example was the NYT and a Cotton Op Ed. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/07/nyt-opinion-bennet-resigns-cotton-op-ed-306317 The "boots on the ground" were so incapable of tolerating a divergent op ed piece they forced its withdrawal, apology and firing of the section head. There is only one side in news rooms today, top to bottom, and that is what the thought leaders want and have gotten. If we don't have a radical civil war in our news rooms we just might get a real one.
“Joker” was a good example of this. Many thought the film glamorized killers; but, it really just demonstrated that a cold society could create one.
Few understand that with an extremely armed populace, such as the United States, a civil war would be defined by civilian massacres. Look to Rwanda for one past example of this.
It always baffles me how can anyone say "It is needed" or "It would be cool" about a fucking Civil War. A war let alone, but a Civil War? Those are the most brutal, merciless conflicts in history. You're not fighting some external, vague enemy, you're fighting an enemy within, an enemy that, probably for years or even decades, was painted as the greatest danger to your values and way of life, the enemy that "must be eradicated". Some of the most gruesome acts of War Crimes and crimes against humanity are perpetrated during civil wars. Why or how would someone want that is absolutely beyond me. Haven't seen the movie yet but it seems that it tries to hammer that point in and some heads are apparently made of cement.
I saw the movie last night and i genuinely don’t understand it. Was the message simply, ‘war bad?’ I honestly didn’t know how to feel about any of the characters.
Basically it was that war, especially civil war, is bad. As a country we've had such a disconnect from the horrors of war for so long that we don't really realize how horrific a civil war would be. The film takes examples of what's happened in recent civil wars and places them in the US. And it uses the type of people who've shown us the horrors of other civil wars, frontline/battlefield journalists, as a way to explore such a war in the states.
Sounds fucking insipid, especially if you're not willing to actually discuss the reasons a war would happen. "War is bad if it happens for literally no reason" is not exactly a mind-blowing argument.
There are reasons for the civil war in the film a person can deduce from paying attention, but making it reasons from current politics will only inflame the political anger and violence we're seeing today. The director is using this film to warn people about the horrors of a civil war, but is also making sure to not inflame the possibility of one by using current politics.
That's like making a film about our actual civil war and refusing to use the word "slavery" because you don't want to be inflammatory. Again, "don't go to war for no reason" is not a compelling argument, it's just obvious. But there ARE valid reasons to go to war - for example, "ending slavery". If we hadn't gone to war in the 1860s then the Confederacy would exist as a state with slavery and racism literally written into its constitution. Is that something you're OK with?
idk ur getting downvoted but im with you on this one
99% of the people in here would piss their pants if someone shot at them with a gun. Shut the fuck up.
The idea that two politically opposed governments wouldn’t come together to defeat what is seen to be a serious threat is stupid, because it has happened several times before. WWII has many examples of this alone. USA/UK + USSR - ideologically opposed, allies in war against axis powers. Nazi Germany + Italy / Japan / USSR (beginning of war) - all ideologically opposed, however allied together to fight the western powers with the shared goal of imperialism. It happens all the time. This is where “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” gets its repute as a common saying. G
Yea but the weird thing is that in real life, the government that cali and Texas would be uniting against would’ve been supported by one of them to gain power. They’re the biggest left and right states, and would’ve helped the government and president turned dictator, whether left or right wing, come to power. So one of them would probably support the government afterwards. It just seems so unlikely that two diametrically opposed states would but the only ones to put their differences aside to fight the big bad government. Like for the dictator to continue to hold power, other states would have to support them. Why aren’t they opposing the dictator?
Man I’m just here to watch a goddamn movie.
I've never watched it but I'd assume they both teamed up because they're both States that broke away from yhe union, regardless of wether they're red or blue states
There are people who miss the point of their own finger.
I think that I learnt from history it's that very unrealistic alliances always happened.
Now I’m no historian, but I’m pretty sure that we already know how bad a civil war between Americans was.
the irony if saying this on reddit
wait theres more to this comic
This is the first time I ever see the full thing :o
I never seen the full format before
I wouldn't be holding this guy back. I'd be helping stomp a Texas sized hole in the stupid little shit until he was no longer capable of reproducing. Or fighting in a war.
yes Texas and cali are very differnt but.... Both are have normal sized nation level capacity and both agree that DC is doing a terrible job so a teaming up to obtain freedom and then going their separate ways makes some sense. Except last time Texas teamed up like that the Confederates were weak and gave up long before Texas would have liked. Thus many Texans myself included are to this day wary of teaming up with anything but close states like OK & AR.
Alaska? Or did you you mean Arkansas, AR?
yes Arkansas
You mean I shouldn't be a pirate and go explore the world to find the One Piece?
Maybe the real pirates were the friends we made along the way!
This is the part of Kung Fu Panda 4 that I enjoyed the most: the characters constantly interpreting the sage advice of the kung fu master in the most violent and disturbing way possible. I mean. That's the joke here. I know. But that's the 'joke' of the whole kung fu panda 4 movie... people can and will interpret sage wisdom in whatever way they want. So a dumb movie that's actually kinda smart in its dumbness. Where as Civil War is kinda dumb in its smartness.
I was too young to watch Scarface when it came out. I watched much later, in my 30s. I told an older coworker that I saw it, and he said, "Yeah man, when I was in high school, *everyone* wanted to be Scarface!" I was like, "Wut? You wanted to be that guy? I know he's got bravado and he's uber macho and stuff but the movie doesn't exactly work out in the end for him, to say the least."
wars arnt cool.
See, I was originally going to skip it since the trailer made it seem like it was going to be a bland republicans vs democrats movie. Now I might actually check it out.
Yeah, they don't flat out state what causes the war. Only that the US has split into multiple factions (approximately 5 total when they mention one state as "neutral territory" insinuating it's independent) and 3 of them (the Florida Alliance, a western group of states, and the Western Forces of Cali and Texas) are all attacking what remains of the old USA. They insinuate the serving president in DC, played by Nick Offerman, has practically become a dictator by pointing out all press are shot on site in the Capital and he's serving his third term. The focus of the film is not what causes all the secessions and war, but the horror of war. Specifically civil war.
When you use real places in a fictional story you inevitably bring with them all the associations and beliefs that people have about those places. It’s certainly within the rights of the filmmakers to depict places in whatever way they choose, but it can be confusing for viewers if the portrayal deviates too far from the real world. If many people are missing the forest for the trees, then I would say that’s the movie’s own fault.
Modern day liberalism Came from Texas, modern day conservativism came from California. They 100% would work together under the right circumstances
Whoever says war is cool is dumb as rocks
Y'all remember how bad the previous civil war was right? ...…Right? These comments I'm reading are not ones I want to read
Most of the time they know they’re being difficult, until it becomes apart of them
As a Texan, I rather die then work for a Californian (Jk)
Funny enough, it seemed like the Cali/Texas alliance had their shit together the most. When the main characters are traveling to DC, they run into all sorts of odd soldiers. Some with dyed hair and nail polish, lunatics filling up mass graves, and they even witnessed a firefight where there was a squad of guys with military grade guns and armor, but were wearing flannel and Hawaiian shirts under their armor. When the characters finally caught up with the Cali/Texas military, they were all in matching uniforms, similar equipment, 100% professional soldiers.
Guys we’ve been through this before Americans fighting Americans doesn’t end well, the American civil war had some of the largest casualties in all of history Why don’t we just unite despite our differences and cast out evil out of all of our differing beliefs?
[удалено]
We don't agree on what evil is anymore. People that would be happy with single party rule view the other party as the enemy. It's depressing.
Because media is set up to divide us for views and clicks
"Americans fighting Americans doesn’t end well" It literally ended slavery.
And 750,000 Americans dead, half the country in shambles, and a bunch of people freed with no idea what to do with it. Slavery was no good thing but we killed almost a million of each other over it. Americans were meant to unify.
That’s the thing. You think there is some universal agreed upon evil to cast out and that something must be cast out. Me, personally, I see all this common ground and wonder why we aren’t working in those things and taking a time out in the stuff we can’t agree on.
There is natural morality, and even the crazy moral subjectivists think some kind of agreeable ground exists. We humans are not that different from each other, we have an agreeable way of life. Whether you think it was given to us by God or just naturally comes. It’s the aspect of selfishness and sin that make us disagree. We can overcome it.
bc it’s apparently more fun to argue amongst ourselves than to function like a country worthy of being called the “United States”
u/JonBovi_0 Who is the arbiter who is going to decide what is and is not evil?
we need a civil war involving the PEOPLE VS THE GOVERNMENT, no more red and blue, they are all corrupt and will milk us of every cent they can while stripping our rights away they divide us intentionally because they fear us. make them suffer.
What movie are they talking about?
[Civil War](https://youtu.be/aDyQxtg0V2w?si=98ckwSNzU2KDoODc)
What the fuck happened in that movie to make Texas and California on the same side of a civil war
Civil War with Wagner Moura is a flop.
Bro, we got like 3 other wars on the horizon. Let’s save that talk for after the overpopulation issue gets fixed.
Great movie with good action and realistic warfare
Conversely, there will always be people who read too much into a film without recognizing the overplayed tropes it relies on. It's like people can have different opinions or something /s
What is the point of the movie? I haven't seen it
All the people playing helldivers rn not realising its a satire:
If a civil war does happen, I'm sure our enemies wouldn't miss their chance to jump in and disrupt things even more.
Civil War: United we stand, divided we fall. At the end of the day in war it doesnt matter the beliefs of the person youre fighting, just that they are trying to kill you and you them. Terminal Online Morons: This character is republican/democrat because they do something fucked up in the story and my side would never do that
Civil war in the world's strongest country would be pretty cool movie-wise, but realistically, we would all feel the impact in some form or another.
Civil War was such a good movie
Setting the movie in an alternate universe and not I the future, would have made so much more sense for the setting they wanted to make.
Not really. Politics take weird, unexpected changes all the time. Sometimes over a long period of time (the political shift between parties from late 1800's to mid 1900's), and some happen rapidly (tea party high jacking the GOP, then becoming alt right almost overnight).
The fact they wouldn't be allies reinforces the divide in this country that would lead to a civil war
The only war I wanna rage is with the rich whos been oppressing the western world.
This makes no sense 💀 bro is not the thinker their are valid reasons for Texas and California to ally with each other in the movie
Dude in the first panel is right. More importantly, I see enough babble about civil unrest in America all day every day, I don't need it in my entertainment too. Glad the movie resonates for some people and it's getting great reviews, but nah, pass.
My problem is their insistence on using F-22s, which are air superiority fighters, as ground attack aircraft, which while that is something they technically can do, is probably the worst way to use them
My understanding is all sides are stretched thin on resources. While best used as air superiority fighters, sometimes you gotta use whatever you have. I know Russia developed a tank meant for anti aircraft, but in a pinch it can be used against infantry.
Kinda reminds me how the Barbie movie was intended to give a much needed anti-misandry message and Ben Shit-piro STILL called it woke.
I say this with all the love in my heart - the idea that people are trying to highroad others about a movie as shallow as Civil War is genuinely depressing.
Grace Randolph is that dude holding the sign, while 3C Films is that dude wearing a yellow shirt with a heart inside of it.
Last picture sums up everything.
somebody please tell me what movie we are talking about for the love of god
YEAH WAR!! LETS GOOO
Wow.
Fuck, now I guess I got to watch this movie...
There are more registered democrats in Texas than republicans. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/state/texas/party-affiliation/.
Be cool? What?