My coworker was telling me how well Jerry Maguire stands up today and I forced myself to remember the major beats of that piece of shit:

  1. Big company bad and evil; small start up good and pure.

  2. Being principled always pays off in the end.

  3. Everyone can make it if they try hard, believe in themselves, and believe in each other.

  4. We can have perfect interpersonal relations if we just learn to balance work and life appropriately, and it's up to us to accept that challenge.

Fuck this movie. More importantly fuck people who like this movie. Jerry would have turned out just like his old firm buddies (even if the major plot points largely stay the same). Everyone in this movie is actively trying to exploit each other in the beginning. And even though it's totally inconsequential to how bad these people are in their shitty lives, if you ask me the most unbelievable part is when Jerry and Bridget Jones get back together at the end.

Not buying it.

Tell me about the shitty liberal movies that are renting space in your head.

  • Ligma_Male [comrade/them]
    ·
    2 years ago

    How about the idea that harm isn’t a requirement for an action to be considered bad?

    for the fourth time, what fucking basis then?

      • Ligma_Male [comrade/them]
        ·
        2 years ago

        despite mentioning Deontology which does just that.

        except deontology is obvious bullshit, like I said, that was a joke.

        You could also say that only actions and not their consequences are the basis of morality.

        that sounds like deontology, you just need the "rules"

        You also have the golden rule, which supposes that a morally permissible action is one in which the other person would be reasonably okay with.

        "treat others how you wish to be treated" is not the same as "treat others how you figure they'd like to be treated". masochists following the former is an obvious flaw.

        How about a universal system of morality is impossible and thus your question is at fault?

        we have implicit moral frameworks because we can make moral judgements about novel scenarios so it should be possible to work out an explicit one that maps to our intuition.

        That’s not how the burden of proof works. I don’t need to have a positive assertion to prove that yours is incorrect.

        if you're going to say mine is wrong that means you're using a different one and you should be able to describe it.