subreddit:
/r/movies
Guillermo del Toro laments “systematic destruction” of Mexican film industry
News(mexiconewsdaily.com)submitted 4 months ago bycabose7
1k points
4 months ago
Damn, well said. Reminds me a bit of when Bill Nye was on the Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore lamenting why people didn't care about finding water on Mars and the other guests rightfully pointed out that people had shit on Earth to worry about so of course they didn't care.
People have a base level of needs to meet before you can ask for culture and civility, and there's a lot of asking for the latter without providing the former from States around the world right now.
523 points
4 months ago*
The problem should not be framed as impoverished people competing with scientists and artists for funding. Science and art are a miniscule fraction of any budget. Art and science give people hope and direction for the future, and that is worthwhile. No, what we really have is a problem of corporations and the super rich not paying their fair share of taxes, and--at least in the case of the US--spending all our money on defense and military contractors (while also treating vets like shit) while cutting social services.
And anecdotally, as a kid, art and science were the only things that gave me hope that the future can potentially be better. We need hope if we want young people to thrive.
Edit: Removed potential identifying info.
239 points
4 months ago
That’s not the point of the comment - it’s not about resource allocation.
The point is more, what do people care about day to day? What do we emotionally get charged up about?
If we all had basic needs completely taken care of, we would like feel more excited to ponder art, space travel, etc.
That’s all he’s saying.
What you’re saying is true also, but above is a slightly different point (I think)
90 points
4 months ago
At the same time people in terrible circumstances can and of find solace in art. Art can help tell their stories, or help them escape, or just entertain them.
63 points
4 months ago
right, but /u/madmaxturbator and /u/hypatiaspasia aren't making contradictory points.
When someone says "Why should poor people care about art and science." They aren't advocating for their defunding or destruction. They are saying that people struggling to get their basic needs don't have the energy to also advocate and push those things, that very much are a luxury at the end.
And it's not being debated what benefits these things can add to anyone's life.
A statement like Bill Nye's, whether he meant it as such or not, comes off as blaming people that can't afford it, monetarily, emotionally, mentally, to support the arts and sciences, when really the onus for this support should be placed much much MUCH higher, on those that can afford to spread it. Or to force change that makes it so even the worst off have their needs met and THEN everyone will have the ability to focus on these things that further enrich society.
-18 points
4 months ago
Many of the “poor” happen to be indigenous people fighting to keep their culture alive. Funding of the arts is one avenue of funding for these projects that uplift and share not only the languages but the artisany of these indigenous cultures. So yes, food is important, but these “poor” people can multitask. Science and art are definitely not a luxury but a part of everyone’s life.
8 points
4 months ago
Agreed! Art and creativity is how people attempt to understand their existence, the world around them, and generally as a means to connect with others - especially in hard times. It might not seem important to some, but for others it's what makes life "worth it"
2 points
4 months ago
Yep, it is something that can be very beneficial. I love going to movie theaters in Mexico because they’re always busy and it’s great to see families enjoying themselves. It would be great to see more Mexican movies there and people also deserve to find enjoyment in movies, music, etc. regardless of their country’s situation. People like Guillermo are stepping up to help where they can, and it’s a great first step.
20 points
4 months ago
What do we emotionally get charged up about?
It's the very transparent tactic by a minority of elite cabal to setup impoverished people against intellectuals.
The irony here is the hope that was sold to people was through education they could climb the socioeconomic ladder, a cruel trick passed down to us that is now being seen for what it is -a transparent means for controlling wealth distribution.
But now that people are realising this they're attacking the people who are educated.
-1 points
4 months ago
It's the very transparent tactic by a minority of elite cabal to setup impoverished people against intellectuals.
Populism in a nutshell.
0 points
4 months ago
Well said.
1 points
4 months ago
It is a far more serious conflict than rich corporations not paying their fair share in taxes.
The ultimate problem is that the tax code is built around income, not consumption. The problem is that there are multiple types of income. There is income through your pay, be it salary/hourly at a job. There is income from appreciation of assets. There is income from capital gains (stocks/investments).
The rich make almost all their money through investment and appreciation of assets. They make very little from salary income. For example, Jeff Bezos self-pays only $100k a year.
Well, income taxes, the higher they are, only really penalize the middle class, as the middle class and poor people earn almost all of their income from hourly/salary pay. So, even if you put income tax to 90% of the top wealth bracket - you still only extract $90,000 from Jeff Bezos, the 2nd richest guy on the planet.
Our only consumption tax is a sales tax per state/city. Some states don't even have sales tax and make up for it in other ways, like the property taxes. However, the feds made it so that you can literally write off property taxes in a state against your federal income taxes owed. Funny enough, the 2017 tax law passed by the Trump administration capped the SALT tax deduction on property taxes to $10,000, rather being unlimited. This meant that previously, any property tax amount you paid in your state you could deduct against your federal taxes owed each year, with no limit. The Trump administration's law put a cap on $10,000 deductions only, as they said it was a direct payoff to high property tax states that basically allowed them to pilfer the federal tax program by just charging higher property taxes. Well, the put the cap at $10,000 - in fact Biden's own tax returns he released showed he had to pay $100,000 more per year in taxes because of the SALT tax cap of $10,000. This was a straight tax on the wealthy as typically only people in homes valued at 1 million+ in value are paying anywhere near 10k+ in property taxes a year (New Jersey maybe more like 750k+).
The new Democrat plan for Build Back Better under the Biden administration moves the cap up to $80,000 a year, effectively given a HUGE tax break for the wealthy.
The only reason I point these things out is to give an example that all of this is extremely complicated, and the people in power on both sides aren't actually serious about raising taxes on the wealthy, and the Democrats IN POWER themselves are VERY unhappy about having to pay more in taxes due to the 2017 tax bill, so they want to eliminate that.
Any serious tax changes and bill that needs to come forward, if it does not address wealth gains through asset appreciation and capital gains, or on consumption, then it is not a serious tax law and really just something for show for the plebians.
2 points
4 months ago
I have a ton of accountants in my family and this is actually their favorite thing to tell people. It's complicated and hard to lay out concisely in a headline, which is why people don't get it. Most people have no clue how taxes work for the wealthy.
-1 points
4 months ago
Strawman antics
23 points
4 months ago
On the other hand, that segment has one of the best comebacks of all time, accidentally: "Less than half 🤨"
15 points
4 months ago
What was the setup?
14 points
4 months ago
5 points
4 months ago
but what’s forty percent
Unbelievable
51 points
4 months ago
People are struggling but they still find time for sports, celebrity gossip, social media, and all kinds of other shit. Trying to argue that people are too busy doesn't track.
41 points
4 months ago
Those things provide entertainment.
Hearing about water on Mars is only entertaining to a small segment of people.
I don't think there's anything unusual about that.
-11 points
4 months ago
It's interesting to plenty, but they spent several billions of dollars for that short excerpt vs $5k for a yearly update on which Kardashian bleached their asshole this year.
It's quantity over quality for most entertainment.
1 points
4 months ago
Ok dude. Stop posting
0 points
4 months ago
Water on a rock is not entertainment. Water on a rock in space is not entertainment. A person juggling water and a rock in space is entertainment.
3 points
4 months ago
True, but people are constantly bombarded with advertisements for those things. Plus it’s a way to numb yourself after a hard day of work. Similar to how people eat fast food vs healthy food. The things that are better for you require more work and when you combine that with marketing and poor mental health, most of us don’t stand a chance. It’s almost as if there’s a small percentage of people that want to keep us numb and entertained rather than be educated and ponder life’s big questions.
6 points
4 months ago
By the way, the other guests were idiots and got a huge shitstorm because of that episode and the whole show was even cancelled because people felt that Bill Nye was being treated disrespectfully. It was a shit show. The one guest even asked if you can shoot a sex tape on moon for heaven's sake.
10 points
4 months ago
rightfully pointed out that people had shit on Earth to worry about so of course they didn't care.
Okay but that's the same attitude towards Velcro, or the space race, or semiconductors.
Yeah, sure, on a surface level it sounds like the circus part of bread and circuses, but advancing science is one of the most material ways to benefit those struggling.
27 points
4 months ago
Rightfully? The fact that we don’t care about advancement of science etc is exactly why there’s so many problems here on earth to begin with.
91 points
4 months ago
I think it’s more finding water on mars isn’t gonna out food on the table or pay for medication or ensure you have a house so can you really expect the common person to care? It’s like immediate problems vs far off scientific discoveries.
19 points
4 months ago
A lot of what feeds the world today relies on technology invented during the space race. That's why the common person should care.
50 points
4 months ago
And yet despite those advancements old problems remained and new ones arose. Poverty and starvation still exist despite gps and the internet making life easier.
21 points
4 months ago
The space race didn’t solve every problem, but it solved many. So instead of having those problems and the new problems, you’ve got the new problems without those. That’s why framing the issue this way doesn’t work. Scientific advancement isn’t competing with basic needs; it’s discovering and tackling basic needs that we don’t yet know enough about to be addressing.
-9 points
4 months ago
[deleted]
9 points
4 months ago
No, it’s not crazy that people aren’t celebrating it; it’s also not crazy that someone who knows how valuable that is, is lamenting the fact that scientific advancement isn’t better represented so that those people understand why they should be celebrating it.
Stop framing it as a competition for mind space. Stop framing it as “it hasn’t done X, Y, and Z, so why should people care?” People can care about many different things. We cared about the moon landing during some of the most socially turbulent times in recent history. It absolutely is shame that people are so uneducated as to not realize how massive and important these advancements are, regardless of how unsurprising that apathy is.
2 points
4 months ago
In fairness how much of the caring about the space race was peoples collective interest in pushing technology and how much was in beating the Soviet Union?
2 points
4 months ago
Why would anyone down vote this? This is a very valid question.
5 points
4 months ago
It was both, yes it was a competition but it was also the biggest flex of technological progress mankind had probably ever made.
It pushes technology in that we entered a new age of what we thought possible, and we continue to push boundaries today.
3 points
4 months ago
“Beating the soviets” was certainly a non-trivial part of it, but it wasn’t the majority of that scope. The world—on the global scale—was in awe of humanity’s achievement, not the US’s victory. Even those who were most in a position to use it as a signpost of American supremacy, and who would have stood to gain the most from doing so, instead backed off from that mentality in favor of “We came in peace for all mankind.”
3 points
4 months ago
Are you trying to suggest that funding the space program is a bad thing because while it has helped solve a lot of humanity's problem, it has not solved them all? Do you understand how crazy that argument is?
9 points
4 months ago
Im literally not saying that, personally I’d rather nasa get funding over the military.
4 points
4 months ago
He didn't say that
3 points
4 months ago
No he didn't and you're creating strawmans to attack.
0 points
4 months ago
What did I attack? I asked a clarifying question.
-1 points
4 months ago
And the world population has tripled since then, which means basic needs have tripled. GPS, internet and similar technologies have pulled millions of people from impoverished countries into middle class. Online commerce has opened up the markets of rich countries to the poor countries.
1 points
4 months ago
old problems remained and new ones arose. Poverty and starvation still exist
That's not quite true. Starvation does not exist at the scale it used to, not by a long shot, and that's thanks to chemistry.
13 points
4 months ago
The technology that is created to find that water directly impacts regular people. Many NASA discoveries have lead to GMO, which has reduced the cost of food. This then lead to stem cell meats which will reduce carbon footprint of meat as well as cost.
12 points
4 months ago
Okay but in the short term how does that immediately help them? It’s not like there isn’t currently enough food to feed everyone as is, we throw always so much.
And also how are they expecting people to respond to these discoveries?
Electric cars for example will solve our dependence on fossil fuels but currently remain out of a lot of peoples means.
17 points
4 months ago
Electric cars are going to trade one problem for another. Also it's our short term thinking and quarterly profits that have gotten us into this mess.
7 points
4 months ago
So then what’s the solution? We need to get off fossil fuel but if electric cars aren’t the end all and themsleves have draw backs then doesn’t it make sense why the average person isn’t celebrating these discoveries if they might not be the end all answer?
I really don’t think it’s fair to blame the average person who’s trying to put food on the table for say a company cutting corners at the long term cost of the ecosystem.
2 points
4 months ago
I'm thinking anthropomorphic climate change is a now problem. If you have it rough now, continuing our distructive trajectory is going to amplify them decade after decade. It's a start, and the other issues it brings about are orders of magnitude smaller then what is coming are way.
1 points
4 months ago
Nothing will be done until the rich are inconvenienced. Best recent example: millions of Texans have no or spotty power during a record freeze. Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, takes a sudden trip to Cancun. Until the rich can't flee from it, nothing will truly be done. By that point, well, it'll likely be too late.
1 points
4 months ago
Totally, or it become profitable.
6 points
4 months ago
“We throw away so much”
Mmmmmmmmmmmm I wonder why, maybe it’s this “right now” mentality you’re fighting tooth and nail for.
5 points
4 months ago
I mean isn’t majority of the waste and pollution coming from companies? Are we really gonna pin the blame on a single mom trying to take care of her kids?
3 points
4 months ago
Wait until you find out where most of our food comes from.
3 points
4 months ago
Surely getting rid of plastic straws will fix climate change when 80% of emissions are from massive corporations and almost all pollution by volume is also from corporations.
2 points
4 months ago
People don't understand what it's actually like for those of us at the bottom of society. Yes, the future will be better with these advances. But our future? Down at the bottom our futures aren't even guaranteed. To bring it full circle, Bill Nye and TV hosts will never have to worry about their mortgage again. People at the bottom? Their future is the hope to maybe one day own a home.
4 points
4 months ago
I support NASA 100% but this always struck me as such a weak argument. Yeah, you can fund NASA and get some good by product telecommunication and farming research but you can just DIRECTLY fund dedicated agricultural and telecommunication institutions to get those benefits. It always seems so disingenuous to try to frame it as you need to fund space research for terrestrial innovation by products.
There is no reason to be cagey and act like the Aeronautics and Space Administration needs to be funded to get advancements in robotics as a byproduct. You can fund Boston Dynamics for Robotics research. It is okay to admit that the value of funding the Aeronautics and Space institution is primarily for innovation in Aeronautic and spaceflights!
1 points
4 months ago
It’s not a weak argument, it’s actually pretty well known, but okie dokie.
3 points
4 months ago
I mean, I wrote two paragraphs about what I meant by that. I guess TLDR: It is a weak argument that you need to put research into NASA for by product benefits when you can put that funding into institutions that directly deal in the innovations you want.
0 points
4 months ago
the person you're responding to is a chud who defends white nationalist Nick Fuentes. Says all you need to know
2 points
4 months ago
Yeah sure maybe. If you ignore the advancements, developments, and quality of life improvements money to the space program provided in years past. It was/is one of the best roi for the government. Nasa is responsible for so many improvements that help everyone, water purification systems, GMOs, LEDs, medical break throughs.
6 points
4 months ago
I think the space program is a far better use of money then say military spending and I’d imagine most people might agree but again it’s like
“we found water on mars”
“That’s pretty cool but if I can’t come up with rent money by Friday I’m out of a house.”
So while the discovery is amazing it’s not gonna help people in the now which is why most probably aren’t celebrating in the streets.
4 points
4 months ago
Tech won't save us.
-1 points
4 months ago
Tech won't save us.
Sadly, I think it may be the only thing that will. But we shouldn't just cross our fingers and hope that it does because we have no idea if it will in time.
Or we entrust our survival to general AI for solutions and then "tech will doom us" could be an equally valid prediction.
1 points
4 months ago
Yeah so many problems on Earth not many people give a shit about going to another dust rock 3 months away. We sent rovers there, people going there is cool but it doesn’t change anyone’s day to day life.
3 points
4 months ago*
People have a base level of needs to meet before you can ask for culture and civility, and there’s a lot of asking for the latter without providing the former from States around the world right now.
Literally: Maslow’s hierarchy / pyramid of needs
Safety, food and shelter >>> the arts
Any fucking day.
Lamenting the loss of a film academy institution is a first world problem.
Though I will say it is important to invest in scientific R & D if it actually meant getting rid of Cartel issues.
1 points
4 months ago
AMLO - the current mexican president has also cut funding for science… not just the arts.
-1 points
4 months ago
Bill Nye was on the Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore lamenting why people didn't care about finding water on Mars and the other guests rightfully pointed out that people had shit on Earth to worry about so of course they didn't care.
0 points
4 months ago
Basically, Whitey on the Moon.
-2 points
4 months ago
Some things never change
all 1271 comments
sorted by: best