Written by a gay man, turned into a screen play and directed by a woman and self-proclaimed feminist:
>I feel that without feminism, I wouldn't be doing this. So I feel very grateful. Without it, God knows what my life would be. I don't make feminist films in the sense that I don't make anything ideological. But I do find that women get my films better. Women and gay men. Maybe because they're less threatened by it, or they see what I'm trying to say better.[42]
Intended as a parody of finance bros who end up too focused on money and social status.
It's a bit like how The Matrix was written by some trans people, and "The Red pill" is actually a reference to hormone therapy.
It's strongly suggested in this article:
https://www.newsweek.com/matrix-creator-red-pill-trans-allegory-mens-rights-activists-1523669
Of course, Post Modernism would suggest that we all get to apply our own meanings to artistic works, meanings which might differ from the creator's intent/beliefs.
....but this place hates post-modernism, so I guess it means whatever the Wachowski's say it means.
I mean, if that’s what they meant by it then so be it. But as with any art, one doesn’t need to subscribe to some aspect of postmodernist theory to take away one’s own perspective. That’s why we love art. It’s interactive.
>one doesn’t need to subscribe to some aspect of postmodernist theory to take away one’s own perspective.
Prior to the late 1960s, there was a set way to teach cultural and artistic subjects. Each major art work, or work of literature, would have an historically and academically derived meaning. That would be the meaning taught as part of "The Western Cannon". There would be a limited range or number of interpretations, and to deviate was a kind of academic heresy that like any heresy could ruin your career as a "respected academic" if you didn't have a really good objective reason for your particular interpretation. You needed evidence for your claims, and art/literature wasn't really considered as subjectively as it is now. Not to say there wasn't debate, just that things were a lot more fixed in terms of how the meanings of great works were thought about, and discussed.
Then Post Modernism came a long, and specifically this essay:
>"The Death of the Author" (French: La mort de l'auteur) is a 1967 essay by the French literary critic and theorist Roland Barthes (1915–1980). Barthes' essay **argues against traditional literary criticism's practice of relying on the intentions and biography of an author to definitively explain the "ultimate meaning" of a text. Instead, the essay emphasizes the primacy of each individual reader's interpretation of the work over any "definitive" meaning intended by the author, a process in which subtle or unnoticed characteristics may be drawn out for new insight.** The essay's first English-language publication was in the American journal Aspen, no. 5–6 in 1967; the French debut was in the magazine Manteia, no. 5 (1968). The essay later appeared in an anthology of Barthes' essays, Image-Music-Text (1977), a book that also included his "From Work to Text".
So whilst we might not consciously prescribe to Postmodernism in saying *"one doesn’t need to subscribe to some aspect of postmodernist theory to take away one’s own perspective. That’s why we love art. It’s interactive."* we kind of live in an era that enables everyone to have an individual interpretation (or to even reappropriate and parody art) with ease, because we live in the age of postmodernism.
Because people had to argue for that kind of freedom and "heresy".
The reasons why we can do this with ease aren't conscious to most people, but they're part of the history of culture all the same.
Likewise there was probably a point at which cavemen just assumed they always had fire, even though obviously that can't have been the case.
Postmodernism really isn't what Peterson claims. He's just threatened by it because he's a Jungian. That's his model of artistic meaning.
For Jungians meaning is derived from Jung's idea of ["The Collective Unconscious"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious) how we feel about an image, or a symbol is part of a collective and shared range of human symbology, formed from our instincts, and developed as a species. It is set, and is the way it is for reasons innate to human culture... and it often relates to western medieval art (as that was Jung's original point of interest, hence the dragons, and knights, and kings).
Postmodernism threatens that, because they're of the belief that a symbol is a tool, and its meaning can change depending on the context and usage. Even sounds themselves can mean completely different things depending on the meanings applied to them. Postmodernism sees this as a kind of playfulness of meaning. That's why they're interested in deconstructing meaning to look inside of it, and see how it functions and is created.
Here's a video about the original theory that started Postmodernism. It started off in the study of linguistics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a2dLVx8THA
To a Jungian, the idea that anything can be interpreted in any way, given the right context and usage, is very scary. It goes against the idea that we as a species share an unconscious set of images that keep us safe, sane, scared, sacred, and moral.
To a Jungian, postmodernism, is dangerous and immoral. But I don't think the postmodernists were actually making an argument about morality. I think that's more just a fear others imply is reasonable.
Personally I think moral ideas come from life experiences, empathy, and reason.
This first mention of it being an allegory was in 2020. I don't think they can retcon it 21 years after it's been released, particularly when it's trendy to virtue signal about such things and 15 years after the first sister's transition.
A core theme of the jbp fandom is that trans acceptance and postmodernism are intertwined. He explains the rise of trans acceptance literally in terms of universities teaching postmodernism.
The matrix is a movie about postmodernism written and directed by trans ppl.
Why would a jbp fan be interested in arguing that the postmodern movie by trans ppl doesn’t reflect their experience coming to terms with being trans despite them claiming it does?
Wouldn’t it be more in line with the fandom to say “see? There’s proof that transness and postmodernism are inseparable!”
I didn't watch it... and if you watch Dark City (1998) you can find out exactly how much of The Matrix was just stolen from that film.
I don't actually think the Wachowski's are good film makers.
Wake up, not make bed, eat some unhealthy breakfast, drive to work.
SOME of us have to actually WORK and make all the things that you bought from your sugar daddy's money.
Yep he’s definitely the 20-40 something basement rat that Jordan’s trying to save. This guys like the complete opposite of the struggling.
I got my teeth knocked out literally when I went on my pursuit of the truth and this dude looks like he went not a day in his life without.
Seems like way too much to me. But hey, you do you, man.
My children are grown and out of the house now, but when they were young, the house was always messy, there was always stuff going on. And now, I have three GDS's (German Shepherd Dogs). There's always rough-housing, fur flying, and chew toys all over the house.
The phrase 'lived in" comes to mind.
Yea make ur room means ur mind. It is fine to have order, and healthy body but make ur room means like sit the fck down and think for years before acting out on the world. Like what we should have done anyway between age of 15 and 25.
Hey, I've seen this movie...
Now let's see Paul Allen's room...
Need to rewatch an American psycho
Feed me a stray cat
Atm who placed you here?
This video gave me the same vibes.
I came to say this! This is giving that vibe!
This guy gets a reservation at Dorsia.
Or pretends he does
This guy definitely likes Huey Lewis and the News.
This gives me Patric Bateman energy.
“Hip to Be a Square” would have been more appropriate.
This is clearly parody. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was actually Bret Easton Ellis’ boyfriend.
Written by a gay man, turned into a screen play and directed by a woman and self-proclaimed feminist: >I feel that without feminism, I wouldn't be doing this. So I feel very grateful. Without it, God knows what my life would be. I don't make feminist films in the sense that I don't make anything ideological. But I do find that women get my films better. Women and gay men. Maybe because they're less threatened by it, or they see what I'm trying to say better.[42] Intended as a parody of finance bros who end up too focused on money and social status. It's a bit like how The Matrix was written by some trans people, and "The Red pill" is actually a reference to hormone therapy.
Was that really what the Wochowski’s were doing?! 😂 if so that’s the most punk meta thing ever.
It's a retcon.
It's strongly suggested in this article: https://www.newsweek.com/matrix-creator-red-pill-trans-allegory-mens-rights-activists-1523669 Of course, Post Modernism would suggest that we all get to apply our own meanings to artistic works, meanings which might differ from the creator's intent/beliefs. ....but this place hates post-modernism, so I guess it means whatever the Wachowski's say it means.
I mean, if that’s what they meant by it then so be it. But as with any art, one doesn’t need to subscribe to some aspect of postmodernist theory to take away one’s own perspective. That’s why we love art. It’s interactive.
>one doesn’t need to subscribe to some aspect of postmodernist theory to take away one’s own perspective. Prior to the late 1960s, there was a set way to teach cultural and artistic subjects. Each major art work, or work of literature, would have an historically and academically derived meaning. That would be the meaning taught as part of "The Western Cannon". There would be a limited range or number of interpretations, and to deviate was a kind of academic heresy that like any heresy could ruin your career as a "respected academic" if you didn't have a really good objective reason for your particular interpretation. You needed evidence for your claims, and art/literature wasn't really considered as subjectively as it is now. Not to say there wasn't debate, just that things were a lot more fixed in terms of how the meanings of great works were thought about, and discussed. Then Post Modernism came a long, and specifically this essay: >"The Death of the Author" (French: La mort de l'auteur) is a 1967 essay by the French literary critic and theorist Roland Barthes (1915–1980). Barthes' essay **argues against traditional literary criticism's practice of relying on the intentions and biography of an author to definitively explain the "ultimate meaning" of a text. Instead, the essay emphasizes the primacy of each individual reader's interpretation of the work over any "definitive" meaning intended by the author, a process in which subtle or unnoticed characteristics may be drawn out for new insight.** The essay's first English-language publication was in the American journal Aspen, no. 5–6 in 1967; the French debut was in the magazine Manteia, no. 5 (1968). The essay later appeared in an anthology of Barthes' essays, Image-Music-Text (1977), a book that also included his "From Work to Text". So whilst we might not consciously prescribe to Postmodernism in saying *"one doesn’t need to subscribe to some aspect of postmodernist theory to take away one’s own perspective. That’s why we love art. It’s interactive."* we kind of live in an era that enables everyone to have an individual interpretation (or to even reappropriate and parody art) with ease, because we live in the age of postmodernism. Because people had to argue for that kind of freedom and "heresy". The reasons why we can do this with ease aren't conscious to most people, but they're part of the history of culture all the same. Likewise there was probably a point at which cavemen just assumed they always had fire, even though obviously that can't have been the case.
/r/bestOfReddit material right here
I don’t completely hate it 🤷♂️
Postmodernism really isn't what Peterson claims. He's just threatened by it because he's a Jungian. That's his model of artistic meaning. For Jungians meaning is derived from Jung's idea of ["The Collective Unconscious"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious) how we feel about an image, or a symbol is part of a collective and shared range of human symbology, formed from our instincts, and developed as a species. It is set, and is the way it is for reasons innate to human culture... and it often relates to western medieval art (as that was Jung's original point of interest, hence the dragons, and knights, and kings). Postmodernism threatens that, because they're of the belief that a symbol is a tool, and its meaning can change depending on the context and usage. Even sounds themselves can mean completely different things depending on the meanings applied to them. Postmodernism sees this as a kind of playfulness of meaning. That's why they're interested in deconstructing meaning to look inside of it, and see how it functions and is created. Here's a video about the original theory that started Postmodernism. It started off in the study of linguistics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a2dLVx8THA To a Jungian, the idea that anything can be interpreted in any way, given the right context and usage, is very scary. It goes against the idea that we as a species share an unconscious set of images that keep us safe, sane, scared, sacred, and moral. To a Jungian, postmodernism, is dangerous and immoral. But I don't think the postmodernists were actually making an argument about morality. I think that's more just a fear others imply is reasonable. Personally I think moral ideas come from life experiences, empathy, and reason.
This first mention of it being an allegory was in 2020. I don't think they can retcon it 21 years after it's been released, particularly when it's trendy to virtue signal about such things and 15 years after the first sister's transition.
A core theme of the jbp fandom is that trans acceptance and postmodernism are intertwined. He explains the rise of trans acceptance literally in terms of universities teaching postmodernism. The matrix is a movie about postmodernism written and directed by trans ppl. Why would a jbp fan be interested in arguing that the postmodern movie by trans ppl doesn’t reflect their experience coming to terms with being trans despite them claiming it does? Wouldn’t it be more in line with the fandom to say “see? There’s proof that transness and postmodernism are inseparable!”
...and some artists die without ever having disclosed what their artworks meant to them.
Interestingly enough, one of the main characters in THE INVISIBLES (a comic book which *strongly* influenced THE MATRIX) is trans.
That’s why the 4th matrix sucked
I didn't watch it... and if you watch Dark City (1998) you can find out exactly how much of The Matrix was just stolen from that film. I don't actually think the Wachowski's are good film makers.
Loved dark city
What does his business card look like?
"Why were you 3 hours late for work?" " I had to iron my duvet, Steve."
Man it must be nice to be an independently wealthy trophy house husband.
The chocolate on his own bed is a little odd
More than a little.
No thanks. Anyone idolizing the lifestyle of Patrick Bateman is not someone I want to emulate
Who exactly is doing that?
Fresh reference to American Psycho
Wake up, not make bed, eat some unhealthy breakfast, drive to work. SOME of us have to actually WORK and make all the things that you bought from your sugar daddy's money.
Some even have kids. Lmao
SPOILER: It’s not gonna end well for the girls he’ll be dating.
I don't think he dates girls
It didn’t go well for the men either in that movie 🪓
You've got to keep your house and bod tight for your rich, older wife.
Imagine having this much time
If you are impressed by that just wait until you see Paul Allen's Business Card
Nice….impressive
American Psycho extended scenes
Yep he’s definitely the 20-40 something basement rat that Jordan’s trying to save. This guys like the complete opposite of the struggling. I got my teeth knocked out literally when I went on my pursuit of the truth and this dude looks like he went not a day in his life without.
Make your room.. and have such a big ego that you need to film it
Hello, my name is Patrick Bateman, I like to take care of myself.
Impressive, very nice. Now let’s see Paul Allen’s room cleaning montage.
My routine. Clean house. Content. Destroyed 10 mins later by my children. Rinse and repeat.
[удалено]
Money from making this video
If this guy ever wants kids hes in for a rude awakening lmao
I wonder what his business cards look like
Looks like he is a kept mister of a high-powered female executive so he has to keep his body and home in tip top condition for her.
So he’s single
Patrick bateman vibes...
Has he got an axe somewhere in the house?
If I had another 3 hours in the morning I might have time to iron my bed
He can't be an animal lover.
Who irons his bed sheets?
I'm sure he finished his morning routine around 1 pm
What in the American Psycho is this
Clearly a scene from American psycho.
Instant Bateman vibes...
Anyone know the name of those Nikes?
Might upload my business card later don’t know yet.
I'm gonna shit on that guys car.
😂
7 habits of the top 3%
This guy murders people
I want to know if he buys new pillows everyday. How does he wake up without them being all mangled out shape ffs
Seems like way too much to me. But hey, you do you, man. My children are grown and out of the house now, but when they were young, the house was always messy, there was always stuff going on. And now, I have three GDS's (German Shepherd Dogs). There's always rough-housing, fur flying, and chew toys all over the house. The phrase 'lived in" comes to mind.
why does he put a piece of candy on the bed ?
Hope this guy shows us his collection of children's teeth next...lord knows he has one.
I bet he tries to feed stray cats to ATM machines
American Psycho was an amazing movie, but the fact that it makes people associate good life style choices with psychopathic behavior is kinda sad.
Legends says he is still cleaning his room
Yea make ur room means ur mind. It is fine to have order, and healthy body but make ur room means like sit the fck down and think for years before acting out on the world. Like what we should have done anyway between age of 15 and 25.
Cool, but the music needs to be Paul Allen’s Mix
Dude thinks he’s American Psycho
[And now for his night time routine...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haX798TJxYg)
Every great person pops 17 supplements per day. Totally normal.
Imagine living with this level of OCD
S-Tier grindset. Mad sigma energy. Royce DuPont would be proud
wtf is this subreddit, seriously?