Added: 2 years ago
From: stimulator
Views: 5,182
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (36)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Hey Jensen, you might want to watch the rest of the trilogy. The entire emotional drama and tension of the three films revolves around Luke trying to RESIST killing Vader because of his hate for him, which is precisely the message of nonviolence. And, by the way, when he refuses to kill Vader it converts him to the Force and saves the universe.

  • genius! direct action is much more productive

  • I'm an avid environmentalist I this is funny!! Love it!!

  • I knew there was something wrong with that movie.....

  • Ok, hang on a sec...Is it supposed to be a joke or what? If so, it's pretty hilarious.

  • star wars by environmentalists?

    you mean Avatar?

  • Best argument ever for blowing shit up.

  • Like this, good points about a lot of the waffling that goes on instead of ppl just taking action to stop things and opposing them.

  • pwned

  • Stim, I'd like to help but don't have any cash. what do you need in terms of sweat equity?

  • Basically I am looking for HI-Def footage to support my film. Searching for that footage is time consuming. Message me and I'll give you more deets

  • hahahah Galaxy Liberation Front.

  • Normally I'm not a big fan of Jensen, but this is pretty funny and brilliant.

  • big fan of stim and submedia, but i can't say the same for this jensen dude. this analogy is ridiculous.

  • seems to me a brilliant analogy.. star 'non-violent disobedience' would make for a crappy film all round, and would be tremendously difficult to watch because all the while you would wonder "why don't they fight back?" and you would fail to connect with the characters considering they had chosen a sure to fail pattern of 'resistance'..

    is it the point you disagree with? it just seems the analogy is spot on.

  • maybe the analogy is spot on, i still think its lame. if i were a WoW or DnD player, i might dig it.

    i don't disagree with the point he is attempting to make.

  • Comment removed

  • meh.. seems to me like an insignificant distinction.

    though i advocate dismantling all hierarchies, there is always a matter of prioritization.

    followers of the religion of capital accumulation and 'resource' extraction exact their terror as a matter of course CENTRAL to their religious beliefs.

    whereas, terror resulting from islam necessarily requires deviation from central religious beliefs.

    (and remember, it is the former who ALREADY HAVE bombed civilian populations with nukes.)

  • there is no use whatever in presenting a false dichotomy.. (between "corporate america" the "terrorists") .. seems to me only one of those is successfully destroying the planet.

    (and believe me, if islamic 'extremism' were ever to rise to compete with the levels of widespread violence and domination capitalism and civilization have exacted from the world, they would be equally deserving of my concerned action)

    until then, capitalism is a far more threatening religious belief.

  • "you forget that the terrorist are what provides a good amount of the world's oil"

    false. i forget no such thing; "widespread violence and domination capitalism and civilization have exacted from the world" is a reference to the oil economy, among other things.. and it could not vanish fast enough for me. if it fails today, delicious,..yesterday? better.

    "jihadist"s, when compared to exxon, shell, chevron, etc.. are relatively minor threats.

    almost zero threat from here.

  • Impossible to care about both?

  • well japs had it coming, they where making nukes too..bet you didn't know that shit..

  • Easy there news fox.

  • "countries" i hope you realize, are complete make-believe,.. like santa, jesus.. the tooth fairy.. "countries" and borders are intellectual constructions which depend on belief to exist. for millions of years, no countries,.. then they arrived yesterday, will be gone tomorrow,.. soon then millions more years without them.

    so clearly i have offended your dearest santa... and so you compare to all the other santas..however we need none of them.

    zero.

  • Comment removed

  • trollin!!!!

  • @nsewx the government does not use a rational definition of terrorist (anyone who commits violence that creates fear for political purposes, which would include themselves and other governments), but rather defines terrorists as anyone who acts directly to oppose their regime. the fbi considers environmentalists as terrorists even when they dont blow things up.

    anyway, those "religious nuts" would have no popular support if their people werent oppressed and exploited by the rich countries.

  • bigups to submedia

Loading...
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more