Westworld (2016)

[axj]

This is the same pattern that we could see in the Trump thread several months ago. When several people disagree with someone, then this person must be obviously "wrong" or worse. Especially if it's one or two moderators someone disagrees with. I think this may be an authoritarian program that people may want to look at.

There is a saying:

"If one person tells you you're drunk, and you feel fine, ignore him. If ten people tell you you're drunk, go and have a lie down".

If ten moderators tell you you're "drunk", and you advice them to look into their "authoritarian program", perhaps you are in the wrong bar.

You should look at that pattern in yourself too, Keit.

I was one of the first people who disagreed that Trump is an "overt fascist" and it was after that that the group consensus adjusted accordingly. But initially, people claimed exactly the same thing: "several people disagree with you, so that proves you are wrong, that you lack knowledge, are not objective, and so on".

Even further back anart banned me because I was pointing out her unhealthy patterns at a time when she was still a moderator here.

We can always count on you, axj, to argue seemingly for the sake of arguing, eh? Funny that you tell others how they have a hard time not being right, yet YOU do that all the time!

Frankly, after reading this discussion, I'm not inclined in the least to watch this (or even watch the trailer). Even if it is well written as some of you said, I refuse to put up with violence, gore, and sex as described, just for the "good lines" that might be hidden in there. There's enough violence, and you can see it every day in the news. There's enough "abuse of sex", and you see that pretty much everywhere, in people's way of thinking and acting, etc. No thanks. If I'm going to watch something, I don't need that gratuitous offense (call me "old fashioned" if you want!). There are plenty of shows that are educational about life without needing to disgust some people and send them wrong impressions (re: Gurdjieff).

But axj will probably ignore this, because it's coming from an admin, and I might be just defending the moderators...

My intent is to increase the objectivity both in my own perception and in that of others. If that looks like "argueing for the sake of being right" to you, fine. But I disagree. Again, this is not the first time we could see this program of doubling down on anyone disagreeing with the "group consensus", even if that consensus later changes to exactly what was disagreed with before.

 

[Chu]

I was one of the first people who disagreed that Trump is an "overt fascist" and it was after that that the group consensus adjusted accordingly. But initially, people claimed exactly the same thing: "several people disagree with you, so that proves you are wrong, that you lack knowledge, are not objective, and so on".

Well, maybe you are smart and were a bit quicker on that one than others? (mind you, we still don't know anything with 100% certainty about Trump.) I think it was about your attitude, as it often is, more than about the things you disagreed with at the time.

Even further back anart banned me because I was pointing out her unhealthy patterns at a time when she was still a moderator here.

Does it come down to you being hurt? Because if it does, I think it would be much more honest (and productive) to say so. You sure come across as "cranky", but anger often covers other feelings. You would think that given that many things have changed, you could have forgiven and understood, and also see that others here tend to be pretty cool with you in spite of your displaying pretty "unheatlhy patterns", quite often. Can't you give us some credit for that? ;)

My intent is to increase the objectivity both in my own perception and in that of others. If that looks like "argueing for the sake of being right" to you, fine. But I disagree. Again, this is not the first time we could see this program of doubling down on anyone disagreeing with the "group consensus", even if that consensus later changes to exactly what was disagreed with before.

I think you are conveniently forgetting a lot of the times where care, patience and understanding are also shown. So, again, is it about hurt? I am very sorry if that is the case, and hope that you can get past it if you want to remain here. Holding grudges like that is hardly ever healthy, and prevents you from learning to be humble, open, and just good to others. We can all always do better (together, instead of fighting about the past and who does better than who!)

"Arguing for the sake of arguing" because, as you have just shown, this seems to have nothing to do with Westworld, and much more to do with how you feel. We can argue forever, but trying to understand is better, isn't it? If you want to be liked here, and encouraged to voice your own concerns and observations, then you might want to be honest instead of using any thread you can to point fingers and prove us all wrong, or reading everything through the lens you wear now due to the (understandable) hurt from the past. Maybe try a bit? When you have built a good rapport, honestly, then there isn't any disagreement that cannot be worked through, usually. But you have to meet people half way.

 

[A Jay]

Just want to say that as a recovering porn addict, I wish I had read Knaill's post before sitting in on an episode with some friends. It definitely triggered some old patterns, and while I didn't relapse I don't think it's smart or worthwhile for myself or anyone else that has had the same problem to expose themselves to this form of 'art'. There's better shows out there that don't have all the gore and the nudity that might lead to a relapse. Grantchester, for instance.

 

[Joe]

I didn't say that people who are struggling with a porn addiction should watch this show. What I pointed out was really meant for Niall who made a recommendation based on hearsay regarding "extremely graphic sex scenes". It may be a minor thing, but believing hearsay to the point of advising others based on that hearsay seems to be a dangerous thing to do, especially if it happens in other contexts as well.

I made the recommendation based on seeing the trailer with my own eyes and then reading one TV magazine review. The trailer included a split-second of that orgy scene (which was practically branded in my head). I then learned that it's from "the longest orgy scene ever on TV".

I'm now going to say what I really wanted to say but was all 'politically correct' about saying:

This show is sick, a product of the mindset that has corrupted our world beyond repair. Anyone who watches this is only wasting what precious time is left to undo the damage they've already done to themselves by embracing that mindset. So yeah, I issued a trigger warning for recovering porn addicts, but it's really also a warning for anyone with ears to hear.

And yes, my opinion is based solely on seeing the trailer and reading one review, so feel free to ignore me and carry on discussing Westworld's deep artistic and philosophical merits.

Westworld! That name is poetic, but not for the reason its creators used it.

Haven't seen the show, don't intend to, like most other similar shows, I find them mostly to be empty calories for the mind. I did however see the original movie when I was young. It made an impression on me at the time, mainly the character played by Yul Brynner as the main robot that 'goes rogue'. Kind of a creepy concept, but nothing more than that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjyOfTEeNHA

Axj seems to be missing the point that Niall was making (which was pretty clear) that it's probably a bad idea for people with porn issues to watch it because of the sexual content (that would apply for pretty much any show with significant sexual content). Niall may have overstated the nature of the sexual content in this show, but that doesn't make it any less of a bad idea for people with porn issues to watch it, because it does have sexual content.

So I can only conclude that axj is nitpicking, and at this point deliberately so because he's got some kind of chip on his shoulder about people not listening to him when he was 'technically' right (he's still going on about the Trump thread). That's a dead end street, but maybe he'll figure out for himself one day.

 

[Phill4]

I've heard it has extremely graphic sex scenes. If you've had difficulty dealing with porn, I recommend that you do not watch this TV show.

You are basing your recommendation on incorrect hearsay. This TV show has a lot of clinical nudity of the 'robots', but no graphic sex scenes.

Hi axj, in this item, after reviewing the influence of porn and oversexuality in society i have to agree with Niall,
Because, sexual arousal can happen in many subtle ways,

For example , and this is an account i will share in this specific context:
I went to have a drink one day after school, (8th grade), then we see this drunk guy scratching a poster of a lady posing on a calendar, when we looked closer, he was trying to "scratch off the bikiny" form the poster!!!

How is this relating to what amount is "safe"? Well there isn't. People can have sexual arrousal over shoes, toys, clothes, robots,. Etc. Etc etc Becoming this a form of porn, because it stimulates THAT system.

To look objectively this issue there needs to be an impartial understanding of how the sexual nature of people works and it would deserve its own thread, and then how different configurations takes people in different routes of experience and affinities.

The problem is that things like that as always in TV, is the same that happens in soap opras, the sell you an idea IMPLISITLY of how things ought to be, how love ought to be, how dramas ought to be, how fights ought to be and so on, That is precisely the issue with porn in broad lines.

In a sense i am not interested in seeing it, it reminded me of that nonsense of "the purge". Yes some ideas were valid but most of it was sending constant messages of what to do, what to think, what to feel, etc etc etc.
My review is it was an awfuly made movie, with a political agenda.
It became instead of: "do you want to include violence in the purge? To do you want to include the purge in the violence?
They don't portrait a sense of comunity the portrait an idea of annarchy as they have portrayed present the association to violence with impunity. Im just fed up with those bad ideas and lack of creativity from movie directors.

 

[Keit]

My intent is to increase the objectivity both in my own perception and in that of others. If that looks like "argueing for the sake of being right" to you, fine. But I disagree. Again, this is not the first time we could see this program of doubling down on anyone disagreeing with the "group consensus", even if that consensus later changes to exactly what was disagreed with before.

Then, unfortunately, your intent is totally lost in an inappropriate way of communicating with others.

Perhaps from your perspective it may seem unfair and as an example of "groupthink", but then you are not considering one major component of what is going on here. That we are engaged in an ongoing and dynamic process of reading and interpreting the reality around us. It means that members of this forum can change their minds, if after researching it appears that certain facts point in a different direction.

Those who actively participate in the process can see and understand all the nuances and the reason for the changes. It's like sailing together on one ship, where everyone is part of the process, and so can understand the reasons for course corrections. But then, there is you, that sometimes appears as standing on the shore and looking toward the sailing ship changing directions, and then shouting to the captain and the crew about their wrong choices. How do you think it looks and is being perceived?

As Chu said, it isn't necessarily what you say, but how you say it. Sure, no one's here to win a popularity contest, but then, you can definitely catch more flies with honey. Beside that, there are also basic courtesy rules, and also a bunch of unwritten rules of accepted and polite social behavior on any forum. For some reason, you choose not to follow them. Basically, you choose to stay on the shore. With everything that it entails.

 

[axj]

I was one of the first people who disagreed that Trump is an "overt fascist" and it was after that that the group consensus adjusted accordingly. But initially, people claimed exactly the same thing: "several people disagree with you, so that proves you are wrong, that you lack knowledge, are not objective, and so on".

Well, maybe you are smart and were a bit quicker on that one than others? (mind you, we still don't know anything with 100% certainty about Trump.) I think it was about your attitude, as it often is, more than about the things you disagreed with at the time.

If it was about my attitude, then I am willing to look at that as well. However, this is the first time someone brings that up. In the Trump discussion I was told I have a lack of knowledge and lack of objectivity, but my attitude as the problem never came up.

Even further back anart banned me because I was pointing out her unhealthy patterns at a time when she was still a moderator here.

Does it come down to you being hurt? Because if it does, I think it would be much more honest (and productive) to say so. You sure come across as "cranky", but anger often covers other feelings. You would think that given that many things have changed, you could have forgiven and understood, and also see that others here tend to be pretty cool with you in spite of your displaying pretty "unheatlhy patterns", quite often. Can't you give us some credit for that? ;)

I brought up the anart episode as an example of people ignoring or not seeing unhealthy patterns in someone who was a moderator here for a long time. It doesn't mean that I hold a grudge or am hurt by it. It is not black and white, Chu. Just because I am pointing out a possible pattern or program in someone doesn't mean that I do not appreciate this place, the people here and the work that is being done here.

"Arguing for the sake of arguing" because, as you have just shown, this seems to have nothing to do with Westworld, and much more to do with how you feel.

Of course it is not about Westworld. It is about our programs and patterns and increasing objective perception.

Axj seems to be missing the point that Niall was making (which was pretty clear) that it's probably a bad idea for people with porn issues to watch it because of the sexual content (that would apply for pretty much any show with significant sexual content). Niall may have overstated the nature of the sexual content in this show, but that doesn't make it any less of a bad idea for people with porn issues to watch it, because it does have sexual content.

I understand that in any lengthy discussion it is easy to miss what was said at various points. I did not say that I disagree that it is a bad idea for people with porn issues to watch this show. I pointed out that giving advice based on hearsay is not a good idea and that this is just a minor thing that may be good to look at to make sure it is not a pattern. That's it.

Then a couple people started claiming that I have a "narrative" to defend, that pointing out the above is extreme and subjective (without providing anything to back that up). I suggested to those people to look at a possible authoritarian program of doubling down on anyone who disagrees with an authority figure or the "consensus" of several people.

So I can only conclude that axj is nitpicking, and at this point deliberately so because he's got some kind of chip on his shoulder about people not listening to him when he was 'technically' right (he's still going on about the Trump thread). That's a dead end street, but maybe he'll figure out for himself one day.

I don't think that being honest and objective about potential programs is nitpicking, Joe. I brought up the Trump discussion only because a similar program could be seen there in several people.

My intent is to increase the objectivity both in my own perception and in that of others. If that looks like "argueing for the sake of being right" to you, fine. But I disagree. Again, this is not the first time we could see this program of doubling down on anyone disagreeing with the "group consensus", even if that consensus later changes to exactly what was disagreed with before.

Then, unfortunately, your intent is totally lost in an inappropriate way of communicating with others.

Perhaps from your perspective it may seem unfair and as an example of "groupthink", but then you are not considering one major component of what is going on here. That we are engaged in an ongoing and dynamic process of reading and interpreting the reality around us. It means that members of this forum can change their minds, if after researching it appears that certain facts point in a different direction.

Those who actively participate in the process can see and understand all the nuances and the reason for the changes. It's like sailing together on one ship, where everyone is part of the process, and so can understand the reasons for course corrections. But then, there is you, that sometimes appears as standing on the shore and looking toward the sailing ship changing directions, and then shouting to the captain and the crew about their wrong choices. How do you think it looks and is being perceived?

As Chu said, it isn't necessarily what you say, but how you say it. Sure, no one's here to win a popularity contest, but then, you can definitely catch more flies with honey. Beside that, there are also basic courtesy rules, and also a bunch of unwritten rules of accepted and polite social behavior on any forum. For some reason, you choose not to follow them. Basically, you choose to stay on the shore. With everything that it entails.

Keit, I would appreciate if you provide some examples where I was inappropriate or went against basic courtesy rules in your opinion.

I don't think that presenting a somewhat different view sometimes means that I am "standing on the shore". You are right in that this is not my "main" ship, but I find this place very helpful as well in many ways.

 

[Oxajil]

My intent is to increase the objectivity both in my own perception and in that of others.

One way we can do that is by taking what other people say to us into account. Have you read the book 'Strangers to Ourselves'?

If what you wrote is your intent, then perhaps it would help to keep in mind that your understanding of when such a scene is graphic or not, or subtle or not, can be subjective and distorted. To at least consider this possibility. I think it would've been a better approach to say that according to your standards the scenes weren't graphic. Even better would've been if you added that to others they could very well be quite graphic, and that people should be careful. To say that what Niall heard "is simply not the case", doesn't make it so, because you're making that statement based on your opinion of those scenes. A fact is that many viewers have criticised the show for its graphic (sexual) content.

So, if it's a simple case of "clinical nudity" (not sure what you mean by 'clinical'), then you wouldn't expect such a response from people. The show has a TV-MA rating. Which means: "This program is specifically designed to be viewed by adults and therefore may be unsuitable for children under 17. [...] Programs with this rating commonly include strong and frequent sexual content, extreme violence, or both." Again, if there was just a bit of nudity here and there and the scenes were done subtly, it wouldn't have got this rating. If you want to increase objectivity in your own perception, you have to consider these things as well.

Personally, I don't think that shows like these are any good for adults either. Shows like these also tell me that people are not creative enough to create a show that doesn't have to rely on explicit violence and sex scenes to get some publicity and attention. Just my take on it, FWIW.

 

[axj]

My intent is to increase the objectivity both in my own perception and in that of others.

One way we can do that is by taking what other people say to us into account. Have you read the book 'Strangers to Ourselves'?

If what you wrote is your intent, then perhaps it would help to keep in mind that your understanding of when such a scene is graphic or not, or subtle or not, can be subjective and distorted. To at least consider this possibility. I think it would've been a better approach to say that according to your standards the scenes weren't graphic. Even better would've been if you added that to others they could very well be quite graphic, and that people should be careful. To say that what Niall heard "is simply not the case", doesn't make it so, because you're making that statement based on your opinion of those scenes. A fact is that many viewers have criticised the show for its graphic (sexual) content.

Yes, it may have been better to put it this way. However, I also said: "Of course, we can debate on what is a graphic sex scene, but as Divide by Zero said, it is all done subtly and not graphic." In that I acknowledged that people have different views on what is a graphic sex scene and what not.

So, if it's a simple case of "clinical nudity" (not sure what you mean by 'clinical'), then you wouldn't expect such a response from people. The show has a TV-MA rating. Which means: "This program is specifically designed to be viewed by adults and therefore may be unsuitable for children under 17. [...] Programs with this rating commonly include strong and frequent sexual content, extreme violence, or both." Again, if there was just a bit of nudity here and there and the scenes were done subtly, it wouldn't have got this rating. If you want to increase objectivity in your own perception, you have to consider these things as well.

It would have gotten this rating with the violence alone, I think, which is quite excessive and sickening sometimes. There is quite a lot of "robot nudity" as well, in a clinical setting, but in my opinion the sex scenes are quite subtle and not graphic.

Personally, I don't think that shows like these are any good for adults either. Shows like these also tell me that people are not creative enough to create a show that doesn't have to rely on explicit violence and sex scenes to get some publicity and attention. Just my take on it, FWIW.

Well, I think it is not such a great show so far, but it has some excellent actors (Ed Harris, Hopkins, the black actress playing the awakening robot). What I also like is the storyline of robots or AI's awakening to the realization that they are in a "Matrix" and wanting to break out of it.

 

[Divide by Zero]

I agree about Niall's warning and didn't dismiss it in my post. He did say it was based on the promo. A lot of times the promo makes the show more extreme than it is, because that's what the zombie population wants.

After the first few episodes of "attracting an audience" in this sex and violence obsessed culture some of us live in, it gets more into philosophy and theories about the brain and consciousness.

I'm reminded of Donnie Darko, where an english teacher refuses to teach Graham Green due to the violence, which was NOT the focus of the book.
Westworld is not about violence, but then- does the same aspect of growing a thick skin with that apply? Can we distinguish between not watching violence due to a thick skin or a true choice? I guess the fine line is what do we watch the show for. If we watch it for the violence/sex/soap opera, then yes, it's an improper thick skin. But if we choose to watch it to learn or experience a different perspective, keeping the wits about, I would say that thick skin of not being easily offended gets practiced. That's what goes through my mind with the violence that is disturbing. But, again, how else can you show how barbaric the guests would become in such a "free world"?

Are we dreaming that this won't happen in an economic/earth changes environment? I don't look forward to it, in fact I'd rather just sign off this server "blue marble" if it comes to me having to kill to survive.

So, I didn't expect much from the show.
I only watched the first few episodes, not focusing so much on the garbage, because of what a friend explained about AI and the ideas of consciousness. I've learned that my first impression of a show can be skewed. An example was Mr Robot, which I assumed to be a pop-culture simplification of hacking.


Joe, I too heard the movie wasn't too deep. But sometimes a series has more freedom due to the time and budget to go off into interesting topics.
Another show that did that was 12 Monkeys, where the movie was just a sci-fi action flick.

I posted what I posted to possibly share the same with others, that it is not that.
As some people deem it garbage before seeing it, you see why I wanted to do this as I have done the same in the past.

 

[luc]

axj, the problem is that there is a pattern with you that you argue, accuse and nitpick - just as an example, I remember this exchange between us from years ago. My impression was that you 'need to be right', which is a program that hinders true learning. It seems you are on a kind of vendetta against what you perceive to be 'group think', which also doesn't help your progress.

Maybe see it this way: you can go on for another ten years crying "Meh meh, I was right about Trump! See how bad you are! Meh meh!" and bring up anart again etc. Or, you can grow up and start learning here, together with all of us, instead of accusing us of 'group think' whenever someone challenges your opinions.

Also, consider this: if you had shown through your actions over the years that you are a helpful and compassionate member here, ready to admit your own faults and programs (or at least considering that you may have been wrong), maybe others would take your opinions more seriously, like in the Trump thread. In other words, if you want to teach us here, I think you should do it by being, not by turning everything around and arguing every minor thing in an effort to prove you right.

 

[Oxajil]

In that I acknowledged that people have different views

So, if you acknowledge that, can you see how your whole "hearsay is incorrect" argument in this case makes very little sense, then?

I agree with what luc wrote above. You come across as wanting to argue your point, rather than starting a discussion out of curiosity to learn something. Again, you may not see it that way, which is why I asked whether you've read Strangers to Ourselves, as you would then at least understand that how other people see us is often more accurate than how we see ourselves. I hope you can see that we're all trying to help here.

That's what goes through my mind with the violence that is disturbing. But, again, how else can you show how barbaric the guests would become in such a "free world"?

There are shows where there is violence or barbaric acts, but not every gorey detail is shown. I don't think it's impossible to show how barbaric a certain character is without showing all the details of that character's act.

I understand that people would like to dissociate once in a while, but I also think it's important to keep in mind what we expose ourselves to. The C's have mentioned the importance of psychic hygiene. What impact does it have on the mind to dissociate away on a regular basis while watching a show that depicts sexual scenes as described in this thread and that shows excessive violence? How would this be positive dissociation?

I think that we should also keep in mind that psychopaths are pretty much everywhere and active in most industries, including the entertainment industry, and their influence may have very well reached many of today's "hot" and "upcoming" shows and movies. They can be tools to spread propaganda, to normalize sick concepts or to desensitize people.

There are very gruesome things happening to people around the world. Knowing that those things happen can move people to do something to make the world a bit of a better place, if only in small ways or to learn more about what's happening on the planet. Seeing bloody things in a TV show doesn't move people to do anything, I'd think, other than being horrified by it. Of course, it depends on the show, but in this case, most of it is done to ''entertain'' people. FWIW.

 

[dugdeep]

I understand that in any lengthy discussion it is easy to miss what was said at various points. I did not say that I disagree that it is a bad idea for people with porn issues to watch this show. I pointed out that giving advice based on hearsay is not a good idea and that this is just a minor thing that may be good to look at to make sure it is not a pattern. That's it.

I don't really understand why you would perceive it as "not a good idea" to give advice based on hearsay. Hearsay is just another form of information to be gleaned about the world around us and should be taken for what it is. It's really up to the individual to recognize whether or not a piece of advice is based on firsthand experience and evaluate it appropriately.

If someone tells me "I heard there's often a speed trap up ahead, so you might want to be careful with your speed," I'd say that's good information to take on board, despite it being hearsay. Or similarly, if someone tells me "I read a few bad reviews of this restaurant so maybe we should try a different place," again, it's hearsay, but it's something I might want to take heed of. Or I could ignore the advice in both instances and take a risk. But to say that I shouldn't have been given the advice in the first place because it's hearsay seems wrong to me. In both instances, I'd appreciate the information, regardless of the fact that it wasn't based on firsthand experience. It gives me a jumping off point to look into the issue myself and research the subject, if I'm so inclined.

So for Niall to say that people who have had issues with porn might want to avoid watching a show that has a reputation for containing graphic sex, I don't see how that could be construed as "not a good idea". Does he have to watch the show himself to determine whether or not it contains something he'd rather not see before being allowed to make a comment?

 

[Joe]

I understand that in any lengthy discussion it is easy to miss what was said at various points. I did not say that I disagree that it is a bad idea for people with porn issues to watch this show. I pointed out that giving advice based on hearsay is not a good idea and that this is just a minor thing that may be good to look at to make sure it is not a pattern. That's it.

This is obviously a narrative, because you are professing false concern over a comment that Niall made. Why is it false concern? Because you are exaggerating it to the point of it being 'dangerous' and projecting on to Niall some kind of pattern of behavior that cannot be normally construed from what he posted.

Then a couple people started claiming that I have a "narrative" to defend, that pointing out the above is extreme and subjective (without providing anything to back that up). I suggested to those people to look at a possible authoritarian program of doubling down on anyone who disagrees with an authority figure or the "consensus" of several people.

Again this seems to be a narrative to justify the fact that you find yourself in an argument, the original reason for which was not admitted by you, which led you to make up another reason for your argument i.e. a 'danger' to Niall.

I don't think that being honest and objective about potential programs is nitpicking, Joe. I brought up the Trump discussion only because a similar program could be seen there in several people.

Well, you started this 'argument' by not being objective or honest about what your real gripe is. You seem to have this 'hair trigger' for anything you construe as not exactly and factually correct. In doing so your ignore the context and nuance of what was said in favor of focusing on the literal and specific meaning of what someone said. That's the definition of being obtuse, and it gets you into arguments that quickly descend into nitpicking and futile argumentation that go nowhere. So maybe you could try being honest rather than covert, from the get go, about what is really bothering you.

Maybe you should start a new topic, clearly and honestly outlining the personal offense your took over the Trump thread, how you were right all along and no one recognized that you were right, neither at the time nor since, and how you have been carrying that grievance for weeks now and how it has been influencing they way you respond to posts on this forum (Niall's comment being a case in point). You could also explain how it has led you to question the validity of the information on this forum in general, and in particular the views of moderators, and how that has led you to question whether or not 'group think' is going on, and whether or not some members have an 'authoritarian mindset' where other members blindly follow the views of moderators.

After doing all that, apart from it being an exercise in honesty with yourself and other members, you might realize that you have a 'problem' with authority, which might have roots in your past experiences, and that a person who has a problem with authority often has a history of being an authoritarian follower themselves or were hurt as a result of placing their faith in an authority that then 'betrayed' them in some way.

You might then also come to the conclusion that the best way to deal with such a situation is not to go around pointing out (or nitpicking) the 'flaws' in the views of the 'authorities' and warning people about the 'dangers' of 'blindly adopting' the views of said 'authorities' and reminding everyone of when you were right and everyone else was wrong, but to recognize that you have a particular issue or 'program' in this area and to make efforts to heal your past wounds and to understand and find a way to accept that life is a lot more nuanced and complicated than you would like it to be.

 

[Woodsman]

Not to diminish the import of personal progress via the conflict seen in the last dozen posts...

I'd like to backtrack a bit and comment on Westworld's sex/violence...

I avoided Battlestar Galactica, Game of Thrones and Mister Robot because they all made me wince. (Eventually, I gave Mister Robot another chance; it didn't become any less sickening, but it was very clever and delves into some interesting themes, I'll admit.)

I hated the Game of Thrones books, got through one and gave up about 50 pages into the second. I hated the negative outlook and all the self-involved, manipulative, violent characters, and how the author deliberately eviscerated all my cherished fantasy novel tropes in the most cynical ways; punishing good people for being non-ponorized, killing the lovely magical wolf familiars early on as if to say, “See how naive you all are? In my world, things are brutal and real. Grow up and see what reality is!” Ugh. It was offensive, and I felt the manufactured story universe was a lopsided forced 'proof' by the author. Good guys DON'T always finish last, I wanted to yell at him! -Plus there was a strong sexual vibe involving under aged girls that the author seemed to be fascinated with. I had no patience for any of it.

And I didn’t like what the book series was doing to my friends, who were all avid readers. It felt like an attack on the real world, telling people that ponerized behavior and belief sets were appropriate and correct reactions in the world. I believed the opposite was the correct reaction; stories which put on display flawless heroes and joyful reinforcement of noble qualities, assuring that the world was a good place where positive energies should be manifest through our collective attitudes. You can in a very real way anchor a frequency of Good or Evil in the world by getting a population to resonate through popular mythology!

Then, after a conversation about a film adaptation of “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” which I’d seen and been similarly disgusted with and spoke angrily against, somebody told me, “No, that was an expose of real circumstances, (sex trafficking in Belgium). You can’t face problems if you look away and pretend they are not there.”

That stopped me cold.

I began to wonder if I was sticking my head in the sand, and if these sorts of media productions also held value in terms of waking people up to the ponerized reality extant around them, of how leaders actually behave and what one must be aware of in order to choose properly and to survive. Not all knowledge is pretty, and pretending otherwise is how one becomes lunch.

This is in a large part why I’ve made an effort this time around, with Westworld, to look directly at the ugliness.

This is what I’ve come away with thus far:

The sex and violence is not meant to be exciting or enticing. (The Matrix was no less violent, but in that film it was Hollywood violence, meant to be ‘fun’). The sex isn't very graphic, more just naked people in suggestive situations, but when it is on display, it is portrayed as something horrible and scary; something only psychopaths would seek. -Though, I don’t think a trigger warning was at all inappropriate; one’s mileage will vary, so having a warning up front provides useful information for anybody who might have different internal programs running which would put them at a disadvantage.

All in all, the narrative offers a smart and compelling cutaway look at psychopathy as it functions in our reality, calls it for what it is without glorification and makes it the enemy. One of the characters points out memorably, “These violent delights will have violent ends."

So for some, I think it could provide a useful lesson. However, I don’t blame anybody for not wanting to look. It’s not as though the people on this forum are unaware of psychopathy or 4D STS manipulations of reality, or who do not shy away from the real thing in the daily news. This show isn’t going to offer anything new which we don’t already know.

My prime curiosity, aside from my regular interest in any well-told story, is in knowing what the public is being hit with. Knowing the content of popular media can tell a lot about what a population will do and think over the following months and years.

It's by no means must-watch media, and there are many better ways to spend an hour on a Sunday evening. Personally, I am finding it entertaining in a "what happens next" sense, and it does provide some interesting food for thought, but I certainly won't be going back based on this to watch the mega-popular BSG or GoT, however. There's only so much of this kind of stuff I can be bothered with.