The Black Takeover of Media Continues....
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (9)
sorted by:
No. It has no market. It's a flop. Paying the audience to watch something is already happening. Half of any market. The rest of the globe are watching it like how? They really aren't. Hint. For free. It's the ignorant tax payers funding it. For example the price of Netflix is what cost in Africa compared to Europe? If they are even buying it.
Motion to change, anything implied, like plots, characters, story, development is a motion not it watch it, or demand compensation for being subjected towards. It's all we can ask. Perhaps people might. No they won't. It's a steaming pile of feces. It won't become anything else.
But it demands the same insertion. Yes, it's the same insertion. If you make crap show it for free or stop making it. As opposed to becoming inserted simply to exploit revenue. There is no other truth. That wage gap is what? But it's not even worth buying.
No, I don't need a bot recreating language. It wasn't racist not watching it. I am stating it's awful. The audience by the same insertion should be paid for watching it. It has detracted from other sales and hits. It hasn't changed anything else.
No implies versus yes...a conflict of reason shaped by ones consent towards suggested aka a trade...sell (suggested) meets buy (consent), hence one being willingly marked by the suggestions of others.
a) being implies center (choice) of surrounding (balance)...ones consent to the suggestions by others shapes imbalance, hence a conflict aka side vs side, while ignoring center within surrounding, hence MARKET (consent towards suggested) and SHARE (want vs not want) aka sharing conflict.
b) watching a movie tempts one to believe in rest (cessation of motion). Why? Because a suggested picture represents a "captured moment-um", while a suggested movie represents a "moving picture".
It's not about watching a suggested movie or not; but about ones consent to suggested "motion" (movie). Being implies RE (respond to) MOVE (being moved by), hence life responding to being moved from inception towards death.
One cannot move; only re-move, hence being (living) re-moved (process of dying).
The few suggest movies to a) distract the many from being moved and b) to lure them into conflicts of reason against one another, hence re-moving each other willingly.
Try viewing it from a magic perspective...the trick is about hiding perceivable motion underneath suggested "movie". The distraction is everything within and about the suggested movies.
It works like a CHARM (to subdue or control by incantation or secret influence).
To(wards) implies being within changing motion.
It's being shown for each ones "free" will of choice. Others cannot make free; only balance (dominating whole) can make choice (free partials). Being choice implies RE (responding to) MAKE (made by).
The suggested conflict between original vs remake tempts one to ignore being re-make (life) within origin (inception towards death).
Writing the above sentence gets others hostile towards me; while suggesting "Robocop...original vs remake?" would get others into countless conflicts of reason.
IN (being within) SERO (thrust by) aka different inserts (life) within same thrust (inception towards death).
a) AWE (ones reverential fear) FULL (replete; having within its limits all that it can contain).
b) awful implies vs wonderful aka your consent to reason about the suggestions of others, while ignoring perceivable...being partial within whole.
c) the suggestions by others cannot be "full", since perceivable offers more than suggestions shaped within.
Each temporary thing (solid) can only exist within constant change (liquid)...other suggest movies (stop-motion for example) to distract one from that.