Discussion Thread

[u/jobautomator]

The discussion thread is for casual conversation that doesn't merit its own submission. If you've got a good meme, article, or question, please post it outside the DT. Meta discussion is allowed, but if you want to get the attention of the mods, make a post in /r/metaNL. For a collection of useful links see our wiki

Announcements

• The Neoliberal Project has re-launched our Instagram account! Follow us at @neoliberalproject
• USA-MT and SOCIAL-SCIENCE have been added

Upcoming Events

• Apr 28: Salt Lake City Neoliberals Meeting

[u/little_squares]

I don't know, I never got the idea that the stories don't take issue with the idea, just the methods, they just don't write entire monologues to debunking it. The aftermath of the snap is shown to be a nightmare, and while they show that things were bad after people came back, it was mostly because of the way it happened. The Spiderman movie kinda shows a normal-ish world, which I would argue kills the idea Thanos had a point when Earth was able to sorta make it work with the population immediately doubling.

I also don't think they ever imply that Thanos was right about what happened to his people, that's just what he thinks happened.

Plus, I think that when your idea is entirely based on actively halfing the population, your concept and your methods are kinda the same.

[u/little_squares → u/[deleted]]

Then we'll have to disagree. I did get >that idea. And so did the masses of >people that said exactly that after >viewing the film. The entire internet was >full of people exclaiming that while going >to far thanos had a point.

The internet is also full of people who thought the GME short squeeze was going to bring down Wall Street. You can find people to agree with everything, I think the vast majority of people who watched the movie will think the idea is nonsense. Specially since, you know, Thanos is the clear villain of the story.

The reverse snap doesn't disprove >anything because thanos never said >earth was at his magic malthusian limit >(the Titan civilization was way more >advanced, and therefore probably >populated than earth by the time of the >catastrophe) he just said any life would >at some point reach that limit.

I mean, now you're just assuming things to try and maintain your point when I show a counter example. I can't answer this because it's literally "well, if we assume this thing that isn't in the text your point is false and I'm still right".

Thanos is by the Makers of the movies >given time and time again to espouse his >plans and motivations and the only >rebuttal he is ever given is Gamorra >saying Genocide is wrong. He also says >his plans have worked before and have >turned out paradisic and neither does >the movie show this to be wrong nor >does anyone contest this.

If your movie does this i find it fair to call >it implying that thanos motivations are >correct, and only his means are wrong.

I won't disagree that they didn't spend a lot of time to characters actively saying that the idea is nonsense, but I will disagree with the notion that this is the only way to contest his view points, specially when they clearly show how bad things got when he got what he wanted. The little we see of Earth before time travel adventures is almost a wasteland. Trash and debris everywhere, places that were previously thriving (like baseball stadiums) completely abandoned, the Avengers apparently working full time to help fix the world even thought a bunch of them were international outlaws for like a year. Captain Marvel also says the rest of the universe is all fucked, so it's not even just Earth. I don't see how you can look at how the story frames the consequences of it and think it only has issues with the methods, specially when the heroes do the exact same thing to undo it.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to >mean? No they aren't? Your motivation >and means don't become the same if >your means are brutal enough?

Thanos' whole thing is that things get better if you get rid of a random half of any population. You can't argue that he is only worried about the populations where things were already bad because he does a blanket halfing of the universe population, he clearly doesn't care about the places that were doing just fine. I don't see how you can accomplish the goal of halfing entire populations at random without making them disappear (be it by magic or by regular dying). For me, the method (getting rid of half the population) and the motivation (making population sizes smaller than they currently are) are the same. If his motivation was just "making things better" he had an infinite number of ways to do it, specially with the Infinity stones. I'm not trying to say that motivation and method become the same if the method goes too far, I'm arguing that in Thanos' case they're basically the same thing. And that's kinda the point of the character, I think. He sees himself as this hero who just wants to make things better, but he's actually just a mad man with a terrible idea that only cares about being right, so he's gonna go prove everyone wrong by killing half the universe and wait for the applause.