Видео

Grimly - everything in Hartford just keeps falling. Its heartbreaking

@@billhosley I have tried bringing attention to the cemetery in hopes that someone would help. I have made 2 nine hour trips to Old North Cemetery. Each time is worse. It was flooded and casket pieces have surfaced above ground.

@@michelebarnett9104the worst part - or proven impossible to have an adult conversation about any of this

@@billhosley The city seems as if they don’t care. As if the cemetery is an inconvenience.

And no never went to jail

Totally agree & was produced by Motown! How why

Certo ou errado dizer:diga-me com quem anda e lhe direi quem és.

Rights? There are no rights in the wild frontier. Men like Gus and Call bring order, and then rights a can be established.

Are you OK? I don't think you are...

@@miroljub3817 well im ok.but no longer a Duval fan

@@robertthomas4545 No, you're not! Duval is just an actor that plays in movies.

Show me your friends, and I can predict your future. How'd it work out?

send it to him and see if he still thinks that way.

once upon a time in America - character mattered.

@@billhosley oh I agree character is important, but man did it hurt to see Jake executed, and the way Robert Urich delivers the line “I didn’t see no line Gus, I was just trying to get through the territory”…man that was amazing acting, really tugged at the ol’ heartstrings ya know? Also earlier when he says “Aww, damn” when Suggs murders the sodbusters…Urich did a great job they all did, Lonesome Dove is one of the best works of cinema ever made not a single miscast role I don’t think. And Jake did exhibit a lot of questionable character traits but he didn’t seem a bad sort, and certainly not the reason to hang him. I never understood why he didn’t try and explain that he was forced to go along with them at gunpoint and was unable to get away, which was true, even if Jake didn’t make the utmost effort to escape at the risk of his life…I do wonder if he couldn’t have killed Suggs and his gang when they ambushed the cattle drivers, perhaps easier said than done. Someone else said they didn’t think Gus and McCall were really going to hang Jake just teach him a lesson but I don’t think that’s true, and I have only seen the miniseries never read the book so I have nothing else to go on, what do you think? Anyway thanks for posting, great scene.

Jake could had tried to stop them especially at the first set of killings but didn't and he kept on with them for the second set of killings that is why why they hung him. They did at least bury him but left the leader hanging there.

​@@cactusfacemcgillicuddymostly because that's chicken shit. Gus nor captain would have rode with that crew out of fear. You stand up for what's right whether you're scared or not. Jake was just as responsible for the killings because he let it happen. Gus and Captain would have been killed before they went along with that. Plus he already shot a mayor in Arkansas.

@@cactusfacemcgillicuddyyou can’t cheat the law and Jake crossed a path by associating himself with the devil.

Can you be specific?

Is that the artist?

it's just as easy to argue that this goes the other way around like for example, one could really easily say this: leftists are individualists; they believe that individuals have vastly different varied needs and that the system ought to be reformed into something that is open-ended for every individual to forge their own path no matter what it looks like (gender role abolition, choice over conformity, etc) conservatives are collectivists; they believe that the traditions and status quo as collectively built up over the years are indicative of how people should live (traditional values, live within the system don't change it, men should be men/women should be women etc) also arguably, even if you identify with individualistic values, your comment was pretty collectivistic simply in its generalisations - you described each political side as a collective realistically, some people are more individualistic, and some people are more collectivistic, and either of them can fall on different ends of the political spectrum for reasons which are justified in their personal framework, and both political sides have elements of them which are individualistic and collectivistic respectively, not to mention people of either side aren't monolithic and share all the same views likewise even the SAME people can be individualistic in some aspects and collectivistic in other aspects, whether it comes to different subjects or even different situations and carlin would've called out all of it lol

YT​@@Envy_May Psychologists have determined five pillars of morality that cross cultural lines and countries. They are: (1) Harm/care (2) Fairness/reciprocity (3) Ingroup/loyalty (4) Authority/respect (5) Purity/sanctity Conservatives recognize all five, liberals and Leftists recognize only the first two. They see loyalty as leading to exclusion and prejudice, authority leading to tyranny and sanctity as religion, which they consider to be oppressive. Discounting loyalty, those on the left quickly degenerate into factions, without authority they descend into chaos and with no sense of sanctity they spiral ever deeper into depravity. Lacking the other three they ultimately lose the first two; a lack of care and fairness. Growing up as a liberal I did not understand the last three; with maturity came an understanding of them and then embracing conservatism. Having been on both sides of the fence I have found intellectual freedom among conservatives that is lacking in liberals and leftists. See my quotation of Bertrand Russell elsewhere in this comment column; liberals and leftists tend to react aggressively towards those who do not keep in step with the herd (read: political correctness). It is a demand for conformity and deviation is seen as disloyalty to The Herd. “The left eat their own“ is a fact that is born out daily.

@@denvan3143 once again, you're generalising the whole group; that's not very individualistic of you recognising those five different ideas is all well and good, but that's descriptive, not prescriptive; ultimately for things to have value they do need to have a _reason_ - you claim that they're all important or else things fall apart, but that's not something you can _prove_ ,it's just what you _believe_ would happen based on your own understandings of things and interpretations - the same goes for anyone trying to make sense of what they believe _would_ happen in response to such broad concepts, we can all only estimate to the best of our ability let me posit to you this: authority/respect should be separated out into two, because respect for authority and respect for humanity are two different concepts and they just happen to share the same word respect for humanity is of _baseline_ importance; people need rights and boundaries which are never infringed unless absolutely necessary in the meantime, authority is not a baseline concept but rather, something which needs to be _earned_ or otherwise justify its own existence somehow - it needs to _deserve_ its respect, not just expect it by virtue of existing making this distinction is important, otherwise you fall into following along with certain people or figures without thinking critically and also there are people who will abuse this lack of distinction, and they will say things like "if you don't respect me, i won't respect you" and what they mean is "if you won't respect my authority, i won't respect your humanity" and some of them will genuinely believe they're being fair when what they're doing is a breach of a person's basic boundaries for the sake of something they haven't justified the same applies to "ingroup/loyalty" - having loyalty to your in-group is all well and good, but loyalty should also be _earned_ and not given without question or critical thinking your opinion on those last couple points _could_ mirror mine, but in my experience, it isn't _uncommon_ for those who identify as conservative to believe in such things regardless of logical basis "purity/sanctity" is the hardest because it is such a broad and vague concept that you'd really need to define further; "sanctity" is of course a concept made up by people and we need to decide in our philosophy what is worth treating with sanctity and what isn't without it amounting to things which can't be questioned; "purity" is also vague because it's like, purity of what ? this NEEDS to be more specific; however, personally, if i had to describe something i value as "purity", i would say "purity of self-health" i.e. to constantly try your best to stay mindful of how anything you might do affects your own health, physical, mental or emotional this could align with what you said about spiralling into depravity; keep yourself healthy to the extent that you are able to manage so that you learn proper emotional skills and do not spiral into preventable sociopathy or psychopathy, nor preventable anhedonia, nor practise physically, mentally or interpersonally unsafe intimacy, nor allow your own sense of boundaries to be eroded to the point interpersonal relationships can't be managed and you hurt yourself with self-blame and enabling others' abuse towards you, etc, etc, etc but what i just described is not exactly what every single culture across the world values; of course, cultures are flawed, in different ways to each other, so they have different interpretations of each of those principles which may be harmful in various ways and again it's not _uncommon_ for me to see people who identify as conservative use these terms in a way that foregoes critical thinking and expects acceptance; loyalty to this in-group _why_ ? respect for this authority _why_ ? this concept is pure and should be treated with sanctity _why_ ? i see conservatives expect their own ideas of 3, 4 and 5 to be valued at the _expense_ of 1 and 2 (and if that's not collectivism at the expense of individuality, i don't know what is); a logically consistent and harmonious concept of values should not contradict itself so much and if it does, it's a sign that it needs to be worked out and re-evaluated in more specific and justified terms in other words i can agree that all the things you mentioned have their place and value depending on how you define them, but i also think they are somewhat too vague to be entirely _useful_ as more than a _descriptive_ tool (which would've been the psychologists' original intention) it's worth thinking about, but nothing is worth blindly following

@@Envy_May A RUclips comment section is not the forum for in-depth analysis; generalizations are to be to be expected and we are speaking of groups, not individuals. You r attempted employing semantics is trite and defensive. Insofar as groups are concerns, consider this: conservatives get 2/3 of their news from conservative news sources, 1/3 from liberal sources. Moderates get 2/3 of their news from liberal sources, 1/3 from conservative sources. Leftist get 95% of their news from leftist news sources. In short, conservatives and moderates understand leftists, leftist do not understand anyone but leftists.

@@denvan3143 i don't understand what's semantic about anything i said, every detail i mentioned was important to what i had to say, not an attempt to nitpick and you can't really _know_ if i'm actually being defensive, you can only guess based on your perception of me (as people's intentions, generally, can only ever be truly known by openly engaging with them) - either way, if you believe i'm only being semantic then you should explain why and how my distinctions don't matter yes, we are talking about groups, but the way these generalisations are framed oversteps what could necessarily be seen as accurate - beyond that, as a general principle, while my thinking leans more individualistic most of the time, i have nothing wrong with employing collective thinking when the situation calls for it, or if your natural mental framework is configured more for it (as long as that's not _all_ you do), and i was merely pointing out that there was irony in what you said for example, in regards to what you said about news sources, you seem to expect statistics with incredibly unclear parameters to be insightful in this context, when really, it only raises a variety of questions, unless you're already inclined towards a particular interpretation of the data through confirmation bias - of course i don't know what _you_ know about the details, but either way, these statistics really don't have enough substance without more detail to actually make a point; you also don't know what _i_ know, so you don't know what might contradict the expected takeaway for a second example, your first comment tried to make the point that the key difference between leftist and conservative politics is collectivism vs individualism, and that this is an insightful breakdown of how to understand these groups as wholes, and i don't think that's true at all; you can zero in on specific aspects you want to analyse or criticise like you did in your examples, but there's a wide enough variety of perspectives and angles you can tackle a wide variety of different phenomenons from that it cannot be pointed to as reflective of the wholes in question my point in saying "you could just as easily argue the other way" was that it does not take much to use one of these other perspectives and make an argument to the exact opposite, and that therefore i don't think either of those angles encapsulates enough of the real story to paint an entire picture i mean let's be real here, you literally said "conservatives understand leftists" solely because they get a 1/3 of their news from "liberal" sources, is there anything more collectivistic than that ? i'll conclude this comment by saying that i can't help but see your own approach as seemingly much more collectivistic than individualistic; observing the groups, weighing your judgement on them, and then choosing to align yourself with one - personally, that's not how i operate, though there's nothing inherently wrong with that approach either as long as you are still able to criticise your own group - i just think this behaviour doesn't quite align with your self-identified individualism and it's another reason that using those terms so broadly in the way you have clashes with a lot of things

MIB Agent Kevin Brown. Priceless!

And absolutely on the nail

“Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." ― Bertrand Russell Individualists are not herd animals.

Makes me think, I’m autistic and I would prefer to be alone away from other humans..

@@mr.crowgamer6250 I am the same way and I'm not autistic. I hate small talk.

You're damn right its unfortunate..🤷‍♂️

Of course we need people to sacrifice their individuality for the sake of the group in order for us as a species to accomplish the things that we accomplished. I think that he's just talking about his personal interactions and why it's preferable to just deal with an individual in terms of conversation compared to a group. That's his personal preference as well as mine. Although their are about 1 in five individuals that I don't want to deal with period in an individual or group setting. I love heart to heart conversations which are difficult and less likely when there is three or more people in a social setting. Kids 10 years of age or younger wether it be individually or in a group, I like they are cute, fun, and imaginative. Individuals 20 years and older most of them I like on an individual basis. I can have a mature heart to heart with them. I cant get that with a child ten years of age and younger. Teens and pre-teens whether it's individually or in a group I can't freaking stand most of them. even when I was a teenager I didn't like most preteens and teens. They're no longer young cute and imaginative like kids 10 years of age and younger and they're not like people, most people, twenty years of age and older where if you catch them individually you can have a mature heart-to-heart with them. Even 20 and 21 year olds most of them have put behind or are starting to put behind their teenage nonsense. And they have a nuff life under their belt even at that young of an age to have some interesting things to say.

There's more to it. It is the nature and the logic of groups that determine if it raises the individuals or put them down. It is wise to be smart about group dynamics and aware of pitfalls instead of going in blind, actually sacrificing individuality on the illusion that you are strengthening it.