Відео

It is normal for a superior culture to conquer primitive ones.

Wow , the explanation was so simple and easy to understand . It made a very complicated text so easy to understand .

Why does this sound like Dramatism?

Your version of Post modernism is a soft academic tool to use to understand what is happening in the social media dominated world, but I think it is only a thin slice of post modernism. It is a useful way to look at the world as a warning of how we could become deceived on a massive scale. Peterson’s understanding is that Post Modernism is fundamentally (and correctly!) an extension of Marxism and Communism, a violent ideology that caused so much pain and suffering for so many people … this is the source of his rage. To say that he is just trying to support his conservative ideas is a huge understatement of why he is so passionate about this. He is ANGRY because Marxist Communism murdered at least 100 million people and he wants its rotten heart and its deadly offspring to be seen by all. If used as an academic tool, it is of some merit and use. If used as an ideology to destroy all knowledge and scientific truth, it is deadly.

This didn't explain actual postmodernism at all.

Loved it since it came in tv in the 1970s.

Great thinkers like Marx!?

Incestuous Intertext- says a new age witch, a faded copy of other people copying something that is actually too lost to copy.

AMAZING

6:15 6:10

I'd like your thoughts on this: I could be wrong here, but I would argue that there is actually no such thing as "indirect" intertextuality. I think the purpose of calling it either direct or indirect is really just to refer to the spectrum of severity with which the intertextuality is present. If we are to say that direct intertextuality is "on purpose", does that dictate that "indirect" intertextuality is "by accident"? I would say no. No matter the severity or degree of the reference, the reference is still there, meaning the producer of it still intended for it to be there. By that logic, I would say that splitting intertextuality into those two categories is redundant. What do you think??

Wow, your explanation here has started to put so many things into perspective for me, thank you! I'll be checking out your video on intertextuality soon. Liked and Subscribed!!

Love this. Gracias 🎉

Seems comparable to how television anchors and reporters speak. It has become homogenized and almost a caricature. If you were to make space for anything else, you probably won’t settle on just one alternative, but rather a variety of options at a of speaking more reflective of the population.

In my UA-cam search bar, I entered "how to appreciate movies" 3 rd video from the top with the least views among them was This. I had no reason to watch this particular video. I clicked this unporpusefully to randomly provide a chance to intrigue me, and I can confidently say I dont regret spending 15 mins of my life watching this and will remember this video here after

I made it to the end.

I appreciate your video and your effort to simplify this complicated concept. Thank you very much.

I just watched Intolerance. Thought it was a lot to take in. I could understand the modern plotline, and it was the predominant one, but otherwise I was sort of lost by the end. I was looking for a UA-cam video to help explain what was happening in the other stories individually and this is one of the only search results I guess I will have to research all the historical events separately.

B

H

I find self loathing woke white people to be lame and insulting to humanity.

Ok

What I personally like about Peterson: He keeps me on my toes. You can never be sure whether he is profound or wrong at any given moment, so I have to keep attention and can't take anything for granted.

I think an important aspect of this was brought up in Jerry Mander's "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television." He said that we are hard-wired as a species to believe what we see, that we treat all images as real. As an example, we can be in a movie theater watching a movie of a man beating a woman to death, and, on either side of us, can be sitting both the actor and actress in the movie - proving that what we are seeing isn't real - yet we will still have a visceral reaction to it because our brains believe it. Charles Manson said the same thing when asked about being a killer, saying "The TV kills hundreds of people every day." When we complain about kids watching so many acts of violence on TV, we don't preface this by saying "simulated" acts of violence. In this case, we clearly have no problem seeing the truth of what Mander said. What we don't realize is that we do not outgrow it.

I genuinely enjoyed watching this tutorial and I learned a lot from this video.

I’m still confused. I never studied films, but I love watching movies. I wish I could understand them more. Like breaking down like you’re doing.

I think it's called history? Challenge it, cool! But there can be NO discussion on reparations, white male privilege or gender. I say this because, when have people in power ever left a good ideas alone? They have abused it & tuned it into something ugly in the name of doing good. There's money & power in dividing us especially when I say It's not for me, it's for the children!

There's also that scene where, when regrouping at Etta's home after evading the hired guns, Butch pushes away the bike from earlier and yells, "keep your future"! This is a clear indication that, deep down, Butch and Sundance would rather die than give up their way of life. It represents their stubborn refusal to embrace America's impending future of industrialization, even if it means being left behind with the Old West.

very well explained! this is the best explanation I saw on the subject!

I am trying to read "Simulacra and Simulation" but it's too fucking hard.

Yes, but from what I've read this is NOT how a spec script is written.

Thanks. I use Highland 2 it's not very expensive and does the job fantastically.

BEST WAY OF STATING THE INFORMATIONS I REALLY UNDERSTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD

If you want i can translate your video to farsi❤

Oh, we don't really need Peterson to "plant the seeds of doubt and distrust in places like the soviet union". We've got history.

4:23 How is this better than Final Draft? With FD, I just press return and/or Tab and it knows what I want. Much quicker. This 'highlight, click, select, click' continue just slows you down.

Lighting is my nightmare specially with analog outdoor becus my hand shakes as well when I focus on both at the same time , theorically is better when I READ FOR THAT SESSION ;)) ONLY

You lost me when you referred to Karl Marx as a "great thinker."

arguably the greatest western?

wow amazing explanation thank you

You’re a life saver! I need to analyze a film for one of my classes to tomorrow and this helped me so much 😭🫶🏽

Hollywoods done

It is not hyper-reality it is pseudo-reality. People cannot think enough to demand accurate data on the distribution of steel down the Twin Towers. Can REAL Skyscrapers hold themselves up if the designers do not get the steel distribution correct?

My postmodernism mainly comes from symbolic anthropology and really dislike how the term postmodernisn is then used as an umbrella term to incapsulate what it is. Peterson evaluation of postmodernism is hurtful especially because he comes from a point of ignorance and he didn't actually read any postmodern intellectuals like Focault or Derrida, he got his summary from a book that attacks all of postmodernism. This is the case with many of its attackers they hate the philosophy so much that they won't get into to it to understand it. Or as I said they pick a way that postmodernism might have been used in a certain context or field and think that represent the whole of it. Ironically Peterson hates Foucault who was largely influence by Nietzsche who is often considered the Father of postmodernism which is one of Peterson's own personal influential figure he looks to a lot aside from Jung.

Didn't the director of Chernobyl spend 10 to 20 years researching it to make the show as accurate as possible?

Wow, thanks! You make ideas that would probably seem crazy or like bulshit at first fly, really clear and believable with down to earth examples!

Thank you your video. Today, I understand Stuart Hall's theory in journalism. But I think more mere theory that his ENCODING/DECODING says. This essay's theory is like K.Elam's semiotics, right?

Really interesting explanation!

THIS IS SO USEFUL THANKS SO MUCH.

I m from India thank you sir more infomative vedio sir please make vedio on cultural studies & major writer.