Anonymous
8/21/2025, 11:56:32 PM No.213887918
>Villain makes such a compelling argument that protagonist can't refute it
Any other examples?
Any other examples?
Replies:
Thread 213887918 - /tv/ [Archived: 169 hours ago]
Anonymous
8/21/2025, 11:57:40 PM No.213887954
Why is /tv/ the only board where I get banned for replying to an off topic thread?
Replies:
femanon
!M6R0eWkIpk
8/22/2025, 12:00:36 AM No.213888035
>>213887918 (OP)
damn it Don
damn it Don
Anonymous
8/22/2025, 12:03:14 AM No.213888092
>y'all
Anonymous
8/22/2025, 12:07:17 AM No.213888184
>>213887918 (OP)
He's right
He's right
Anonymous
8/22/2025, 12:08:33 AM No.213888221
Replies:
Anonymous
8/22/2025, 12:08:39 AM No.213888227
>>213887918 (OP)
If I were there, and my own individual priorities were to better the environment, I wouldn't give two flying shits that "we" were oil drillers, and having a seat in the meeting means I can exert the right to sabotage as I damn please.
If I were there, and my own individual priorities were to better the environment, I wouldn't give two flying shits that "we" were oil drillers, and having a seat in the meeting means I can exert the right to sabotage as I damn please.
Anonymous
8/22/2025, 12:10:54 AM No.213888285
Anonymous
8/22/2025, 12:14:40 AM No.213888372
John Tuld in Margin Call if I was from a wealthy family with industry and old time money, probably.
>John Tuld: So you think we might have put a few people out of business today. That it's all for naught. You've been doing that everyday for almost forty years Sam. And if this is all for naught then so is everything out there. It's just money; it's made up. Pieces of paper with pictures on it so we don't have to kill each other just to get something to eat. It's not wrong. And it's certainly no different today than it's ever been. 1637, 1797, 1819, 37, 57, 84, 1901, 07, 29, 1937, 1974, 1987-Jesus, didn't that fuck up me up good-92, 97, 2000 and whatever we want to call this. It's all just the same thing over and over; we can't help ourselves. And you and I can't control it, or stop it, or even slow it. Or even ever-so-slightly alter it. We just react. And we make a lot money if we get it right. And we get left by the side of the side of the road if we get it wrong. And there have always been and there always will be the same percentage of winners and losers. Happy fucks and sad sacks. Fat cats and starving dogs in this world. Yeah, there may be more of us today than there's ever been. But the percentages-they stay exactly the same.
That line that gets me is this:
>But the percentages-they stay exactly the same.
He's basically arguing that throughout "recent" history your always had bourgeois elites calling the shots and exercising unduly amounts of influence while they moved the markets they controlled and every now and then things went kaput because that's who are. It's not completely wrong, but it does paints an indictment of humanity that allows powerful people to do as they please.
>John Tuld: So you think we might have put a few people out of business today. That it's all for naught. You've been doing that everyday for almost forty years Sam. And if this is all for naught then so is everything out there. It's just money; it's made up. Pieces of paper with pictures on it so we don't have to kill each other just to get something to eat. It's not wrong. And it's certainly no different today than it's ever been. 1637, 1797, 1819, 37, 57, 84, 1901, 07, 29, 1937, 1974, 1987-Jesus, didn't that fuck up me up good-92, 97, 2000 and whatever we want to call this. It's all just the same thing over and over; we can't help ourselves. And you and I can't control it, or stop it, or even slow it. Or even ever-so-slightly alter it. We just react. And we make a lot money if we get it right. And we get left by the side of the side of the road if we get it wrong. And there have always been and there always will be the same percentage of winners and losers. Happy fucks and sad sacks. Fat cats and starving dogs in this world. Yeah, there may be more of us today than there's ever been. But the percentages-they stay exactly the same.
That line that gets me is this:
>But the percentages-they stay exactly the same.
He's basically arguing that throughout "recent" history your always had bourgeois elites calling the shots and exercising unduly amounts of influence while they moved the markets they controlled and every now and then things went kaput because that's who are. It's not completely wrong, but it does paints an indictment of humanity that allows powerful people to do as they please.