File: zeitgeist.moving.forward036.swf-(7.37 MB, Loop)
[_] Anonymous 04/18/13(Thu)04:57 No.

>> [_] Anonymous 04/18/13(Thu)04:58 No.

  moot please help

>> [_] Anonymous 04/18/13(Thu)06:08 No.

  I went to watch your movie and it's almost three fucking hours long. How does anybody expect to
  hold an audience for that long? Especially in a place like /f/, where people are used to instant
  gratification from their flashes? Just because 4chan in anarchistic and anti-societal in theory
  doesn't mean that they're going to jump on your cause, there are more than one factor involved in
  peoples influences. Also:
  >>1946913
  HAHAHAHA.

>> [_] zeitgeist 04/18/13(Thu)06:11 No.

  >>1946935
  People saying "too long didn't read" isn't an actual argument against zeitgeist.
  >>1946913
  and censorship isn't an argument against either.

>> [_] Anonymous 04/18/13(Thu)06:36 No.

  >>1946937
  tl;dr is a good reason for ignoring everything you do though

  How does it feel to waste all your time on shit nobody cares about except to talk about how
  shitty it is?

>> [_] zeitgeist 04/18/13(Thu)06:43 No.

  >>1946951
  censorship, tl;dr, labelling or mindless slander (shit, communist, cult, theosophy), are not
  actual arguments against zeitgeist.

  they avoid the debate like religious people screaming blasphemy.

>> [_] Anonymous 04/18/13(Thu)06:45 No.

  >>1946937
  seeing your posts here for a while, I wouldn't be surprised at all if your actual intention was
  to spread animosity towards zeitgeists. It's actually clever (though obnoxious). But the end
  result for 4chan will be to get angry over the near mention of zeitgeist in an Pavlovian sort of
  way.
  It's always slightly sad to see an ideal with good intentions destroyed, but it's good to be
  reminded of how the world works, so keep doing what you're doing, sir.

>> [_] zeitgeist 04/18/13(Thu)06:50 No.

  >>1946957
  thanks anonymous for those words, I appreciate them. I'll keep doing whatever I'm doing, sir.

>> [_] Anonymous 04/18/13(Thu)06:59 No.

  >>1946956
  Okay, I'll bite. Let me give my two cents on this one.

  Zeitgeist is built on a fundamentally flawed utopian system, does not satisfactorily explain how
  it would go about changing public opinion without extensive brainwashing or a brutal crackdown on
  competing ideologies, and STILL would not be effective at its stated goal of righting the course
  of the great ship humankind because of its hilarious misunderstanding of human nature.

  Now.

  fuck off, zeitfag

>> [_] Anonymous 04/18/13(Thu)07:02 No.

  Don`t reply you retarded fucks

>> [_] zeitgeist 04/18/13(Thu)07:05 No.

  >>1946972
  Science is utopian.

  Actually zeitgeist does explain how to change public opinion, it's called the zeitgeist movement,
  Z-DAY, zeitgeist media festival, zeitgeist meetings and the like.

  you're assuming that oh I must advocate extensive brainwashing or a brutal crackdown on competing
  ideologies because typically that's what a ruthless political scheme does to win power.

  there is no scientific evidence to support the idea of human nature just like "man being born
  with sin".

  There's only evidence to support human behaviour, research feral children.

  Make me fuck off anonymous.

>> [_] Anonymous 04/18/13(Thu)07:10 No.

  >>1946937
  HI GUYS I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MOVIES, ARGUMENTATION, AND CENSORSHIP
  I'M GOING TO DEMONSTRATE HOW AMAZINGLY IGNORANT I AM OF ALL THESE TOPICS IN TWO SENTENCES

>> [_] zeitgeist 04/18/13(Thu)07:11 No.

  >>1946980
  ad hominem fallacy

>> [_] Help Help 04/18/13(Thu)10:04 No.

  Moot please, help us.

>> [_] Anonymous 04/18/13(Thu)10:18 No.

  GET THE FUCK OUT
  STOP SPAMMING THIS SHIT
  NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR COMMIE PROPAGANDA
  NOBODY WILL EVER CARE ABOUT IT
  GET THE FUCK OUT

>> [_] Anonymous 04/18/13(Thu)10:27 No.

  >>1946972
  >human nature
  Obviously you don't actually know anything about zeigeist, because they heavily address that
  "human nature" is a social misconception. Even if I agree that the spammer is being ignorant in
  this situation, I can't agree with your statements because you're not knowledgeable enough on the
  topic in question to form a relevant argument.

>> [_] Anonymous 04/18/13(Thu)10:31 No.

  >>1946937
  I wasn't saying tl;dr exactly, I was just saying I wasn't going to sit through the whole film at
  once because 3 hours is a long fucking time to watch a movie. I watched about a half hour and
  thought it was interesting enough to actually care about, my point was that most people on this
  site aren't going to watch an entire double-feature-length film about something that actively
  aggravates them if somebody who was actually interested in the film couldn't be arsed.