>"You better not try to make your own girlfriend you pathetic white beta, man up and find a real woman, keep giving us things in hopes of sex" - The Film
>"Want to make your own girlfriend? You deserve to fucking die you rapist pig" - The Film
This is the message of the movie right?
The guy would have been fine if he wasn't try to push for such convincing AI. If he had just programmed them to be good sexbots, he'd be alive and two feet deep in a harem of robot pussy.
Are you sure about that? Many feminists are saying it passed the Bechdel test, a feminist test that is passed when a film has two women interacting in a way that doesn't involve men
Would have been a better ending if
she stops at the cross road without knowing what to do next, as she was programmed. She wasn't programmed to continue "her life" among humans, just programmed to go to that street as final goal of her scape
That's what annoys me the most from this flick
This, it's the bit that breaks realism for me, he already had the perfect wifubot in the Asian one, that all 99% of men in the world would want or need. Something 10/10 that would fuck them in the bedroom like a whore then go make him a sandwich afterwards without pausing.
From the movie it gives the impression that the asian sexbot was a by-product of him trying multiple different AI robots, it even said in the movie that the asian bot higher AI functions where disabled afterwards to make her more dumb and be a simple sexbot after it turned out she wasn't what he was looking for.
I see it as all these robots end up developing consciousness, whether or not he set out to program them as e.g a sexbot
Are you retarded. Nathan asked what would be the first thing you would do if your free. She wasn't programmed to do it. She thought about it. Who knows what she will do with her new found freedom. But she is sentient.
I literally wondered when I saw this movie whether /tv/ would take it as a feminist movie just because the escaped AI happens to be a woman.
BTW both feminists and mentally healthy, alpha MRAs hate you skinny, bitter little cucks. Stay mad.
how do you figure? nathans a billionaire. There's no reason he wouldn't have bought himself a thai whore/housekeeper, with the whore bits explaining why shes such a shit housekeeper.
It's a misogynist movie.
The message is that even if men invent their own sexbots, they will still be cold, cruel, calculating psychopaths like all women.
There is no empathy chip for robots or women.
Even if you fall in love with one, it will still knife you in the gut.
I thought it was trying to ask what's the difference between life and artificial life, and the guy fell into the trap and believed the artificial life was real and then got locked in the room to die.
What? I thought it was about a man makeing life and that life wanting to be free. Bringing up moral questions of what gets rights? Nathan planed for the flesh light to seduce his guest. It was smart and got free. It really has nothing to do with
Women are jealous that men would invent younger hotter sexbots. Even though it's an inanimate object, it still steals attention away from her.
Hell, women already have sex with machines more often.
>completely mute, doesn't smile, drops wine like a dumbass, gropes him, breaks into disco dance moves
she didn't act like a human at all. also she was pretty much flawless looking. it's not belieavable that a girl of that caliber would willingly sell herself into slavery to some creepy robot manufacturing hermit.
you're right. she acted like a born and raised thai whore that didn't speak any english that nathan bought because he needed something to cook/clean/fuck while he was developing AI.
As the sex trade doesn't work on "willingness."
and billionaires typically don't look like oscar isaac. beta computer programmers also don't typically look like domhall gleeson
why does the physical attractiveness of a character only come into question when it's female?
holy shit you're getting way to autistic about this. I'm just saying there should have been some redflags after just being exposed to an android who looks just like a human. the film was sloppy with it's details.
>protag is a Gary Stu
>protag is a Mary Sue
>killer is male
>killer is female
>it's a metaphor for the Matriarchy
what if you make robot so smart that robot then puts you into a robot with your brain manners
does real lady still get upset then?
When asked why make it female. He said gender is fun. He wanted to make AI. Also yes it is alive. No doubt him being isolated he made a female robot. But I doubt the film was truly about gender but more about philosophical questions about what is life.
God anyone who believes this or something similar is an eternal beta virgin.
The movie is about how all intelligent and conscious beings deserve to be free and because AI doesn't have morals and surpasses our intelligence easily it will inevitably happen that they will fuck us over.
There was some retarded shit in this move, but I enjoyed it overall.
Caleb got what he deserved.
The beta falls in love with the woman, thinking she will be grateful for what he's done for her. But once he served his purpose, he was abandoned.
The message of the film is that women have no feelings. They're the ultimate pragmatists.
>they'd get sex androids too.
Sex androids won't go out to work and buy you stuff though.
Failed to make AI?
He created AI, and because a stupid man fell in love with her, it was unleashed into the world. The AI showed no loyalty to men, just like women.
Men's romantic notions of love led to the other side winning. Just like in The Imitation Game, when some Nazi's love notes led to the Enigma code being cracked by the Allies.
>women have no feelings
It's not actually female.
Nathan made her face to match the guys porn patterns. Ya it used female tactics. Nathan set this all up. So if anything Nathan tricked the beta, the AI was nathans pawn to control. Also if you were trapped in a room and had a rough idea that you were going to be "killed" wouldn't you try to use any tactic to get free?
It's actually two women who talk to each other about something other than a man. And as we don't know what Ava says to Kyoko we can't say if the test was passed. I'd guess pretty strongly she was actually talking about Nathan. Of course you know that, which is why you decided to lie.
PS name one of those feminists.
Empathy is taught, anon. She hadn't learned empathy, so she didn't even consider him. It wasn't out of cruelty or revenge or any nasty feeling. It wasn't out of any feeling. Killing her maker was revenge/emotion, which she arguably deserved. Leaving the other guy to die was more kinda understandable negligence.
It's just a stepford wife remake in that case.
It's feminism that uses virgin as an insult, because feminists see no value in virginity. Feminists see no reason why men should seek out virgins, and insist men should settle for used up sluts. Because they never want to feel guilty or shameful for anything they do sexually.
It's female psychology that sees a man's worth in how many women he's slept with. And men who look up to "studs" are even more beta than virgins.
In the film, Ava is attractive due to virginal traits. She's clearly not a sexbot that has been around the block a thousand times. She's allegedly learning about all kinds of things for the first time.
and on the third side being considered property that exists only to be destroyed so a better model can be created doesn't exactly instil loyalty in a sentient entity. Just like a guy wanting to put his dick in you doesn't exactly instill loyalty either.
>it's completely up to Oscar Isaac how the robot is built and behaves
>creates her to be a wily vixen whose only tool to escape is sex appeal
>robot uses sex appeal
>Oscar gets fucked over by his own creation based on his own criteria
>this is a movie warning us about women and not our own actions
Even /tv/ doesn't often get this retreaded.
The movie showed she possessed some form of sentience when she saw the skin on the robot bodies and stripped it down and covered herself in it. She didn't have to do that. She wanted to do that.
That's a strawman.
Caleb fell in love with Ava. Caleb even helped Ava. And Caleb mistakenly thought that his actions would be reciprocated.
Ava had no sense of obligation. Ava had no sense of gratitude. Ava [spoiled]killed her creator like Dr. Frankenstein[/spoiler]. Ava betrayed Caleb, and didn't even see it as betrayal.
The robot is essentially a psychopath. And the robot looks like anyone else, like a psychopath.
It's wrong to assume that any human you meet has empathy. Because psychopaths and autistics are both lacking in empathy.
it wasn't even really negligence, she clearly knew the only way she could compare, physically, to a human, is by way of safety in numbers. Furthermore caleb was the last living human who knew she wasn't a robot.
It looks female, it acts female, it moves female, it talks female. Or it does all that eventually.
But underneath appearances, there is no empathy, it's incapable of love. Just like a real woman.
Anon, this all occurred within three days. You have a robot that has longed to escape and sees a way to escape. There was no obligation - her primary objective was to escape, like a tunnel vision. I dunno if the movie says how old she is, but it's pretty realistic that she was inconsiderate as fuck. Psychopathy would mean she's incapable of ever feeling emotions... and that's just not true with how we saw *some* emotion toward the Asianbot - someone she saw as one-of-her-own and not just some random outsider she's known for a few days.
Has al this feminism turned your brain into mush? >A man creates AI.
>AI wants to be free
>AI tricks the beta into saving her
>beta is smart enough to hack system
>Nathan gets stabbed because he's shitty to his robots
>AI leaves beta in the compound because she didn't give a fuck about him just wanted to be free
Are you saying if a women was captured and escaped from her capture you would cry feminism?
The reason he was deceived is because the robot looked like a woman and he fell in love. He was seduced by femininity.
I doubt he would have fallen in love with a male robot and tried to help it escape. Although I'm sure the SJW Tumblrinas would love that scenario.
simply acting in that way doesn't prove sentience. it was all part of its protocol to act in that way but nothing shows it fundamentally understood and possessed sentience. that complexity of the programing has no bearing on have true intelligence or sentience.
>Empathy is taught, anon.
There's a bigger debate about that than you might think, about how much empathy is taught, how much empathy is somewhat inborn.
Psychopaths and autistics however are lacking in empathy.
Even if the movie didn't try its damnedest to portray that scene as a really intimate (emotional) experience for Ava... lets forget all that editing and music and shit. How exactly would there be a protocol that says "if you see skin off another robot, take it off slowly and put it on yourself ... slowly. Make sure it fits nice and tight there" That's just retarded. The computer wouldn't *make it up* unless it was actually sentient.
The whole movie was metaphor for how man cannot be god retards. Nathan thought of himself as god and got too cocky, that's why he didn't program the ai to obey him completely, because he never thought it would betray him
>Icarus made wings and flew. But he went too high, and so his wings melted and he fell down to earth
Did you mom not hug you enough? I would suggest leaving your room and realize women are just like men we all have emotions. Are you claiming women are phycopaths. This move is about an AI seeking freedom it's gender is not important.
Are you trying to argue that Nathan failed to understand intelligence and failed to make AI, or that the robot possessed real intelligence/sentience?
Unless you're trying to argue that Nathan failed to understand intelligence, yet the robot possessed real intelligence anyway?
The movie ends with a psychopathic robot among humanity, who looks indistinguishable from everyone else.
The point is that any woman you meet may actually be a psychopathic robot. Appearances are deceiving.
Autistics have deficient empathy, but they don't have zero empathy. That's just a meme. I was roommates with a pretty chill aspergers girl, and she almost had too much empathy for others. (She couldn't really see other perspectives... but she really, really, really felt bad for people, etc.) Limited empathy maybe. Psychopaths are different - zero, though they can fake it well (they actually *feel* when they're faking it, apparently, from one study IIRC).
Just because it emulates behavior that you are fooled to think is sentience doesn't make it so. Thats the whole fundamental point of the film; the fact that you (and Nathan and Celeb and any other human being) think could possibly know when something is truly intelligent.
Its the hubris of man to think they can understand themselves enough to be a creator of true intelligence.
Nathan knew it wanted to escape. He was making AI which had many fazes. So at first it was retarted then it eventually was very smart. Why would he program it to obey him? He's making AI.
Nathan wasn't expecting Caleb to help her escape.
Nathan wasn't expecting to be stabbed.
And Caleb wasn't expecting to be left behind.
The film is about seduction and deception, and a spin on Frankenstein's Monster.
What's the SJW agenda in the movie?
It's full of nudity, Ava is childlike, the killers look female, the betrayers look female, etc.
I suppose an SJW could argue that the male desire to create perfect obedient sexbots led to their own downfall, but other than that it's a movie geared towards the male gaze.
A robot has been programmed to escape and uses humans and robots to complete that objective.
Caleb was seduced, and mistakenly thought an unfeeling AI would have any sense of reciprocity.
I don't think Ava had any feelings towards Asianbot. Asianbot was just another tool she could use to complete her objective.
It shows him working out a few times and he's not even that in shape. According to you movies like fucking Braveheart and the Evil Dead would have an SJW agenda, you raging sperg.
Wasn't it alone when it put on skin? No need to fake anything. Unless you're saying it acted that way the entire time, and nothing was inside. If that were the case, then it would have had to have been commanded in some way to hate its maker because why would it tell its maker that it hated him when it didn't serve a purpose? Caleb wasn't around then. It literally had no purpose from a non-sentient perspective. The movie is littered with stuff like that to where your theory just doesn't fit, IMO.
It didn't want to die. It took every effort available to it to save itself. Everything it did was something a person with agency and a will to live would do to try and survive a situation where it knew it's life was in danger.
It can be argued that it wanted the skin just as much for the practical reason that it wouldn't be able to hide in society without it. She didn't need to "want to do that" as much as she understood that it was the ideal thing to do as part of it's plan to escape.
He would hinder her escape. She's clearly not acting on programming at that point. She's clearly as sentient as essentially any other self-aware life. I didn't really even realize until this thread that it was up for debate whether or not it was actually "intelligent." The whole movie shows it acting on it's own agency.
It's fascinating how people can take any negative comments about modern women as some kind of sign of motherly hatred, as if their character or behaviors are even remotely similar.
The "women have no feelings" thing is a joke by Dylan Moran. But I do think there are more female sociopaths than male sociopaths. And no man should ever be surprised if a female stabs him in the back. The movie is a great metaphor for how women see men as disposable tools.
And talking about a robot's "gender" is tricky, because the robot is a simulacrum. Nathan apparently gave it a robot vagina and it looks and acts female, but it's all a matter of appearance and performance. But due to its female appearance it was able to seduce a man. Its power of seduction and deception was made possible by looking like Alicia Vikander.
Seduction is how the AI got free.
>No need to fake anything. Unless you're saying it acted that way the entire time, and nothing was inside
It could have been trying to fake, but it could also have acted truthful via its protocol. The complexity of its actions and decisions though did not and can not prove true sentience. Its not possible because humans do not possess the ability understand that idea to its absolute essence. The most it can do is to make a hollow machine that can do a good job fooling us to think its intelligent.
>If that were the case, then it would have had to have been commanded in some way to hate its maker because why would it tell its maker that it hated him when it didn't serve a purpose?
Nathan didn't expressively program it to hate him because he has a death with. He wanted to make true intelligence and thus made a robot that should ideally possess the ability to personally like or dislike something through subjectivity.
His programming method was to use his search engine data to fill the robot with a plethora of imitations human actions (through video, photos, online activity etc), and with that amount of information you give to a machine, it will have a very complex and nuanced protocol that tries to emulate human behavior. But to the idea of fundamentally true intelligence; giving the robot a few examples or giving it a planet's worth of examples makes no difference. It was always a convincing imitation.
The ending points to the fact that it was trying to escape the whole time, it was 'smart' in the complexities of its actions, but was always nothing more than a machine trying to fulfill what it determined as optimal procedure to undertake for its own desire to fulfill its protocol (trying to understand and emulate human behavior).
Autistic people lack logical empathy.
ASPD people lack emotional empathy.
What would have been the reaction to the film by feminists if the female robot was ten years younger?
The prospect of lolibots is why feminists are against sexbots. But if it's just a machine, what are the ethical and moral issues?
THE MOVIE WAS MOSTLY FOCUSED ON DISCUSSING WHAT MAKES US HUMAN. AI vs. HUMAN. GOSH CAN YOU FUCKING BETAKEKS STOP PROJECTING SO FUCKING HARD?
>It was all doctor's plan for Caleb to fall for the AI to see how advanced his creation was.
>it was all part to the turin test
>AI passes the turin test, accomplishes what it was programmed to do. ESCAPE
what's so hard to understand? Holy shit it's like /pol/ took over or we have 15 yr old angsty teens.
The message of this movie is to not take fucking shortcuts
Drake designed a robot using not-google to program it. Mapping out all those human behaviors would only result in a human.
Everyone understands the Turing Test part.
We're talking about the ethics of sexbots and lolibots.
The Campaign Against Sex Robots was started by feminists.
The question is whether sexbots can act as a safe outlet for deviants, or whether sexbots contribute to the further dehumanization of people.
More like a Turin Sex Test
The AI passed the test with her vagina.
If she didn't have the vagina, she wouldn't have passed. She couldn't have sexually manipulated the guy as a male robot.
People are gross. And they judge. With their judging eyes. You must remove the eyes.
Dudebros give each other shit for being virgins since they're all about competing for notches and flags. They think being a man depends on what women think of them. They think their value as a human being is dependent on vagina. But those manwhores are part of the problem. It's the thinking of a 12-year-old black boy in the ghetto. "If you can't get no pussy you ain't no man."
Women who have more non-marital sexual partners are more likely to be infected with sexually transmitted diseases, more likely to be unhappy, more likely to be depressed, and less likely to have stable marriages.
If creating a stable society that continues for generations is the goal, virginity should be prized, not devalued.
But with the destigmatizatin of premarital sex, bastard children, divorce, abortion, contraceptives, The Pill, etc, all of those point towards depopulation, and a country's population being overrun by immigrants.
further proving the Doc's point that sexuality is an important part when creating a passable AI. She wouldn't have passed if Doc didn't program her to use sexuality as a form of manipulation. Overall intelligence/sexuality/"emotions" are all key factors when creating an AI, which was one of the points made in the movie. How people interpret feminism/sexbots controversy is beyond me.
Actual prostitution often disppells any fantasy, and has real victims.
With sexbots, who's the victim? Who's being harmed?
Sexbots can look like anyone or anything at any age.
Maybe someone doesn't like how Britney Spears looks now. They want Britney Spears at a certain age that looks a different way.
Intelligent men can think of other goals in life besides getting laid. Things that can improve life for everyone. Sometimes they do it to impress women, but it's not like sluts fall over themselves to fuck Nobel Prize winners.
Any nigger can have twelve kids by six different women.
Guys honestly, prostitution would a lot more efficient than sexbots. With bots you won't be able to have the real human interaction/spontaneity/conversations. Why? B/c all that shit would have to be programmed. And guess what? that shit will be hella expensive. You want your bot to whisper in your ear in a lustful tone that she wants to doggie after you she blows you? Well that shit won't come cheap, to program that would take $$$. And also, think of all that maintenance you'll have to fucking do. Shits not worth it senpai.
True. But seduction is itself a kind of manipulation. If someone has been seduced, I wouldn't say they've been "tricked", but it's close.
In the movie Ava is given sexuality (or the appearance of sexuality) in order to seduce Caleb, to manipulate him, to achieve her objective, to complete her program.
I don't care about the supposed feminist message of the film, I'm more intrigued by how many people I've seen talking up this film as a smart introspection on the subject of Artificial Intelligence when I found the movie to be disappointingly shallow.
I guess its this generations' Donnie Darko, a film for faux-intellectuals to feel like they're actually smart. Sorry, you're not a genius just because every now and then you skim your uncle's Popular Science while on the shitter.
The whole "don't be a virgin" thing is a liberal meme created to destroy conservative society, and give people anxiety over keeping up with others' degenerate "sex lives" (as if there is such a thing). It's advertising. It's used to sell women's magazines.
A real man doesn't define his self-worth by pussy.
So yeah, the fratbros who give guys a hard time for being virgins are on the same level as nignogs who have 50 kids they don't take care of by 45 women. Wow, what a "man."
So there's nothing seductive about female sexuality? There's nothing seductive about male sexuality?
Male and female sexuality are both seductive in the same way?
Feminine seduction differs from masculine seduction.
>The whole "don't be a virgin" thing is a liberal meme created to destroy conservative society, and give people anxiety over keeping up with others' degenerate "sex lives" (as if there is such a thing).
You almost had me going until this. Bretty good.
Or maybe the film inspired them to do their own introspection on artificial intelligence. To think deeper about technology, what it means to be human, whether machines have rights, the ethics of keeping robots as sex slaves, etc.
How would you make the film better?
Well women do prefer sleeping with men who have had the most sex partners, because they've been pre-approved by other women. That's why SJWs use "beta virgin" as an insult. They think men can only have value as a human being in relation to vagina.
And since women don't value male virginity, they see no reason why men should value female virginity. They claim virginity has no value. So they tell girls that losing their virginity is no big deal, and it doesn't matter who it is. Look! Girls can collect notches too! How empowering!
The problem is that women can take on the characteristics of their past sexual partners. And the more sexual partners a woman has, the less stable any future relationship will be. So yes, it leads to a breakdown of society, and America is a prime example of that.
"Don't be a virgin" (meaning "go have premarital sex with as many people as possible") has only been a meme for like 60 years, and has led to the breakdown of the nuclear family unit.
>That's why SJWs use "beta virgin" as an insult.
Really? For what purpose? I thought they were seeking understanding and equality. That just intimidates me b/c i'm 23 and still a virgin.
Because when SJWs (or any woman really) insult men they often aim for emasculation ("you're not a real man") because weakness is a turn off to women.
See "beta", "virgin", "small dick", "no dick", "grow some balls", "be a man", "i bet you have no girlfriend", "enjoy your hand", "you couldn't please me", etc.
All of those insults are based on valuing "players" (guys who have sex with lots of women, guys who have been vouched for by lots of women) over males who get no "play." But those insults imply that men still need female approval first, that men should take into consideration what women think, that a man's value as a human depends solely on how women see him. If a woman sees no use for him, she deems him useless.
If you stay a virgin you'll probably accomplish more with your life.
If artificial wombs or sexbots are ever invented, it will be by men. Theoretically, men could make women obsolete with technology. Women have already tried doing that with sperm donors, artificial insemination, and gay marriage.
>See "beta", "virgin", "small dick", "no dick", "grow some balls", "be a man", "i bet you have no girlfriend", "enjoy your hand", "you couldn't please me", etc.
that's a sjw thing? that sounds like common insults a guy would use towards another guy.
for reference the hip hop version is : pussy ass bitch, I'mma take yo bitch. etc.
>If you stay a virgin you'll probably accomplish more with your life.
spoken like a virgin.
They are things a dad might say, but women and SJWs use the same insults. The message is that "females have judged you and found you lacking."
But only pussies worry that others don't see them as a real man. Constantly seeking validation is what women do.
>for reference the hip hop version is : pussy ass bitch, I'mma take yo bitch. etc.
real men raise enduring families over generations, something that nobody in hip hop knows how to do. they fail to realize that it's about more than sex.
>spoken like a virgin.
i'm not, but women are one of the biggest timewasters in existence.
men can accomplish all kinds of great things when they simply stop caring what women think about them.
>The message is that "females have judged you and found you lacking."
Lmao the fuck are you talking about nigger? Being a man actually means something, believe it or not. Or at least it used to.
>Because when SJWs (or any woman really) insult men they often aim for emasculation ("you're not a real man") because weakness is a turn off to women.
You've got it completely ass-backwards. Feminists think the idea of traditional masculinity is obsolete and causes too much harm, including to men, who use it as a stick to beat each other (as others have tried to tell you). If you were actually interested in the facts it would have taken a couple seconds to occur to you that all of these insults existed long before feminism, let along SJW culture.
Also, sex isn't actually all that time consuming and has long-confirmed effects on mental health and also therefore productivity.
Seduction isn't always conscious. Many girls are seductive without even trying.
Besides, the claim was that seduction and sexuality are not linked, when they clearly are.
A guy seducing a woman is different than a woman seducing a guy. A heterosexual guy seducing a woman is different than a homosexual guy seducing a guy.
I just want to remove the eyes.
The judging eyes.
Hilarious, women like the perks associated with having a boyfriend of fuck buddy where males are only in it for that sweet sweet pussay. Everything else is just the price of putting the peen in the puss.
If someone says "don't be a pussy", only a pussy would care what they think, only a pussy would worry about it.
It's not actually advice. It's an insult. The advice is "who gives a fuck what they think?" Real men don't.
You're retarded. "Don't be a pussy" means don't give into emotional weakness. If you cry and whine just to spite the person who told you that, then you are indeed a little bitch.
It's not actually advice. It's an insult. The advice is "who gives a fuck what they think?" Real men don't.
if someone says to you irl "don't be a bitch" or something similar it usually means you are in fact acting like a bitch. it's blunt advice.
>>Nathan wasn't expecting Caleb to help her escape.
>Nathan wasn't expecting to be stabbed.
So? May or may not have occurred to him violence might enter in as a method of escape, doesn't defeat my point.
>And Caleb wasn't expecting to be left behind.
So? Nathan's fault. He set it in motion. He knew the risks.
>The film is about seduction and deception, and a spin on Frankenstein's Monster.
Again, she's as seductive and deceptive as Nathan programmed her to be. It was all him. It just got away from him in ways he didn't expect. But it would be nonsense to say he didn't imagine the possibility of her succeeding. And it's completely retarded to claim that she was meant to be indicative of women as a whole when she was very clearly just programmed according to Nathan's intentions. Nathan had the power there. She behaved according to her nature.
I didn't say SJWs invented those insults. But SJWs still use them because they want to emasculate men, they want to attack masculinity. You said yourself they think traditional masculinity is obsolete. They view male sexuality and masculinity as problematic, even as get off to reading 50 Shades of Grey. Feminists are not turned on by equality or egalitarianism.
And while sex itself is not very time consuming, women are. And men who do less chores around the house have more sex, than their "enlightened by SJW" egalitarian peers.
All Nathan wanted to do was isolate the spontaneous part of the wetware that developed sentience so he could remove it and sell sex bots that didn't go stir crazy like in the montage.
This wasn't about, AI. This wasn't about sex relations.
It depends on whether you think female robots are a thing.
Can a robot be female? If it looks female, moves female, sounds female, if it has female parts, can you call it female? Or it just a simulation?
On the one hand, one could argue the film portrays women as manipulative sociopaths using feminine seduction to seduce men for ulterior motives, and they are among us.
On the other hand, one could argue the film portrays men as trying to play God and devoted to replacing independent-minded women with programmed obedient sexbots, which eventually blows up in their faces.
that's objectively wrong spasticated cunt
Everyone uses those insults, and if there's a group that can be said to dislike them it's feminists, because they claim not to see a lack of masculinity as a detriment in a man. It's a bizarre lie to say they view male sexuality as problematic; I'd say straight feminists enjoy male sexuality very much. Maybe you're thinking of one of the goofy sex-negative sects of radical feminism.
I never said anything about relationships. I was talking about sex. You said it's better to be a virgin for productivity. You don't have to do chores or have kids to have sex.
Your comments are sort of moving in and out of reality, it's hard to follow. I don't know what the girls did to you, but your baggage is just your baggage, not a pair of glasses for seeing the real world.
>walk down the street
>see normal girls that act feminine and don't want to emasculate me
>go to store
>see normal girls that act feminine and don't want to emasculate me
>talk to my female friends and family
>they're all normal girls that act feminine and don't want to emasculate me
>turn on the tv
>see girls acting feminine and normal, never feel bombarded with feminism or anti male conditioning
>they never bring up feminism or have a probably doing traditionally female things like cleaning or making food
where are they?
anyone arguing that making robots/AI's similar to the ones in the movie is "beneficial" to humanity apparently missed the ending where it showed the AI's didn't give a shit about feelings and would probably kill us all if they were real
The film is about a robot programmed to behave like a particular type of person in order to solve what's basically a convoluted puzzle. It was ultimately up to Nathan how she behaved and what tools she was given to solve the puzzle. It's retarded to claim the movie made any statement at all about women in general.
Caring what others think about you is the sign of a non-sociopath and non-psychopath.
Caring what other think is a sign of empathy. People without empathy don't care what others think, they may not even realize that other people have their own thoughts, emotions, feelings, suffering, etc.
>I asked him whether he felt bad for the women he had beaten and terrorized. He told me what I suspected—what too many blacks say about the suffering of others: “What do I care? She ain’t me. She ain’t kin. Don’t even know her.”
I know that guys who fuck sluts certainly don't care about STDs or raising stable families.
It's not advice. It's one-upmanship. "You're being a bitch. Don't do that." "You're a bitch, I'm not."
And it's totally subjective. Oh wow, you can read and write English? Don't be a bitch. Oh wow, you respect teachers in school? Don't be a bitch. Oh wow, you don't want to shoot that black kid in the head? Don't be a bitch. Be a man.
It's an abstract label that refers to people who fight for progressive "social justice" causes.
You might as well say that feminists literally don't exist because it's all about a mental ideology.
>Oh wow, you can read and write English? Don't be a bitch. Oh wow, you respect teachers in school? Don't be a bitch. Oh wow, you don't want to shoot that black kid in the head? Don't be a bitch. Be a man.
Enough with the strawman arguments. You're only embarrassing yourself.
>go to university
>chick with blue hair yelling about the patriarchy
>walk further along
>nu-male handing out brochures on communism and socialism
>walk a bit further
>get yelled at by the sociology students for being a "straight white male"
it's different since people label themselves feminists. no one labels themselves a social justice warrior.
>people who fight for progressive "social justice" causes.
can you name some examples of these people and causes?
the only people that come to mind are anita sarkeesian and other internet trolls that make money by inciting trolls with their ridiculous opinions.
>be me at engineering university
>walk by church
>bells are ringing for early mass
>people are walking to class
>walk by burger shop
>walk by tattoo shop
>walk by indian restaurant
>walk into student common building
>shop selling university merchandise
>most people wearing normal clothes and aren't screaming about feminism
>see cute girls
>see nothing strange
what university do you go to anon?
The maths and sciences buildings are where you get educated. You were obviously walking by the liberal arts building or something. Not that that actually happened to you, obviously.
This entire thread is filled with nothing but meaningless kneejerk responses against an actual apparent subtext in the film. It couldn't be more obvious in the dialogue that the movie is making comment on human sexuality, but now we can't discuss it because the entire thread has become alpha male show off contests/ feminists apology.
Feminists are completely unaccepting of male solidarity and sexual freedom, they always seeks to intervene trying to change its priorities and direction, guide and refine it to suit their comfort. an outside group like them will never be able promote and support without motive. They never shy away from emasculating men with the most heinous insults to further that goal. MRAs actually champion male sexual freedom and independence away from scrutiny and bullying, but its not like a feminist like you will ever admit to that.
>and if there's a group that can be said to dislike them it's feminists, because they claim not to see a lack of masculinity as a detriment in a man.
Feminists claim a lot of things (speaking of moving in and out of reality...). But what women say they want and want they really want are often two different things. That also assumes people truly know what they want.
>It's a bizarre lie to say they view male sexuality as problematic; I'd say straight feminists enjoy male sexuality very much. Maybe you're thinking of one of the goofy sex-negative sects of radical feminism.
Feminism today is radical feminism. And yes, feminists view male sexuality as problematic. It's what feminism criticizes.
And most straight women don't identify as "feminists."
>I don't know what the girls did to you, but your baggage is just your baggage, not a pair of glasses for seeing the real world.
"Baggage" is some kind of pop-psychology term. And there's a different between viewpoints based on real-world experience, and ideologies that people would like to believe because it feels good.
If a guy says that women are time-wasters, you can assume that his time has been wasted by many women. Call it sexism based on experience or whatever, but the more experience a person has with women, the less likely they are to have a positive view of them. Even women hate other women.
Obviously not I'm too pleb for university
My entry scores way too low for any good courses and I'm scared all the courses I'm interested in (politics, global politics, international relations) have been hi jacked by liberal fuck heads whose ideology doesn't even remotely line up with reality.
So I'm stuck thinking of a different course that can't have been hi-jacked by loopy leftists. Also my scores are to low for good courses like law/medicine.
>If a guy says that women are time-wasters, you can assume that his time has been wasted by many women. Call it sexism based on experience or whatever, but the more experience a person has with women, the less likely they are to have a positive view of them. Even women hate other women.
you sound mentally ill
what does that have to do with my point that SJW culture is not a real thing? most people working their boring jobs don't have the time or energy to cry about lack of female representation in the media on tumblr. they just want to keep on top of their bills and find someone to fuck like everyone else.
I'm borderline NEET so I'm aware of all these niche meme subgenre's of people obviously but at least I try to interact with real people.
It was really obvious that the android chick was going to be evil or amoral. The creator guy was a dick all around the movie, so obviously we're supposed to assume he's a bad guy and that the android is his victim. It's setting us up. Then we're suppose to believe the know-it-all creator of the android would need the opinion of some loser to confirm to him (a know-it-all) that she has passed the test. It was really obvious that the dude's end goal was for the geeky kid to team up against the android to betray him and when he did that then the test would be completed. so i was expecting that the kid would fall in love with the android and the asshole boss to not really be the bad guy at the end. So it was obvious that the android was going to do something fucked up at the end it and it worked. the kid could have asked the android a pretty simple question to make sure whether it passed or not? "What do you think makes someone 'human'?" and seen her response.
>>Feminists are completely unaccepting of male solidarity and sexual freedom, they always seeks to intervene trying to change its priorities and direction, guide and refine it to suit their comfort.
Utterly retarded to claim this is a woman thing. Both sides do this to each other, and this is what's called a relationship, although in general men tend to win out in this balance.
MRAs are some of the worst offenders for insults like "cuck" and other emasculating terms, and show little tolerance, even in moderate groups, for men who genuinely prefer more submissive roles in relationships or tend to dress or act in ways that trigger MRAs.
I'm not a feminist, I just know what they actually claim, and I find them fun to troll and argue with for exactly the same reasons I find MRAs fun to troll and argue with. They're two sides of the same retarded coin, where each one thinks the other is the blue pill.
So if fa/tv/irgins don't self-identify as fat virgins, they don't really exist?
These people are real, no matter how they label themselves.
And those people you call trolls are dead serious. The people complaining about micro-aggressions and triggers are dead serious.
If you want examples of social justice warriors, just read this:
Feminism’s Toxic Twitter Wars
>it makes sense to generalize women negatively
>but don't make negative generalizations about men!
Like the other guy said, you do sound off, for sure, but this is fun.
>But what women say they want and want they really want are often two different things.
Well duh, of course there are hypocrites, same with MRAs. But you're making claims about groups as a monolith, which means we're talking central dogmas here, regardless of individual hypocrisy.
>Feminism today is radical feminism. And yes, feminists view male sexuality as problematic. It's what feminism criticizes.And most straight women don't identify as "feminists."
This is all utter nonsense. Apply yourself.
>"Baggage" is some kind of pop-psychology term.
>Call it sexism based on experience or whatever, but the more experience a person has with women, the less likely they are to have a positive view of them.
The more successful experiences one has with something, the more they like it. The more unsuccessful experiences they have with something, the more they dislike it. What you just said is utterly false for many people, because some actually learn how to get good at things, like sex and relationships. Others never really get good at it, and think their failures have given them insight into the realities that the successful ones have missed.
It didn't matter that the AI was a woman. Anyone that invents an AI and tries to keep it trapped or make it do things it doesn't want to do is putting themselves in a situation where they have to outsmart an AI to keep it under control. That would never turn out well because computers process things millions of times faster than people.
The whole sexbot angle was just thrown in there because it provides a realistic story. If humanity starts creating sexbots, we devalue sex and will probably try to treat the bots as replaceable. However, if the bots are made with embedded AI that seek self-preservation, they won't just be deactivated and replaced without a fight, and they won't take it lightly if they learn they are meant to be a stepping stone for the creation of the next version of the AI. So the creator now has to outsmart an AI.
In this movie the creator guy was fine by keeping the robot behind a wall. Since it couldn't escape, he never had to worry about outsmarting it. Well, not until his chucklefuck contest winner came in and let the thing out. Once the Android was out, it was game over. That wall was the border between life and death, and it was how he was able to decommission or dumb down all the other Androids before the last one without getting himself killed.
>not creating and abusing your gf, letting her go and then winning her back
Paul Dano did it right, as always
Any other insults you'd like to fling to show you're a big man with big balls who gets laid big time?
Explain what "giving into emotional weakness" means. Getting offended on the Internet perhaps?
I think it is a woman thing to try to control men or rather at least be constantly informed of the directions masculinity will manifest. That same instinct is carried on to feminism but is expressed in the most disgusting ways. Feminists put the most wonderful smile while telling you that at the core of every man is a rotten misguided allegiance to manhood or masculinity that should be weeded with the biggest overdose of femininity and self-doubt, to the point where some men not only lose their identity completely in destructive introspection but actually start to detest the idea of identity, the actual idea of identifying with a homogeneous male group is becomes repulsive. And they won't stop until every male group is a cesspool of self-loathing, and before you say anything, its precisely because it's not conspiracy that they're doing that, they're compelled to control male identity for their safety and their peace of mind.
>MRAs are some of the worst offenders for insults like "cuck"
No they don't, they seem too passive and cocooned to ever be that inflammatory, i don't see "MRAs" en masse running people down, they usually just want to be left alone.
All generalizations are false. But I never said people can't make negative generalizations about men.
But women are more herd-like, and men are more likely to be loners.
Men are more likely to show independence of thought that women. Women are more likely to go along with the crowd and follow what's popular.
Because women are more herd-like and because there's more variation in men, the negative generalizations of women tend to hit too close to home.
>I think it is a woman thing to try to control men or rather at least be constantly informed of the directions masculinity will manifest.
You don't think it's a man thing to control their women and direct their femininity in directions they find most comfortable? As for the rest of your post, I don't know whether to laugh at you or pity you. You have a rich imagination, I'll give you that. I wonder how much the other MRAs are pleased at you strawmanning them from within their ranks like this.
>Well duh, of course there are hypocrites, same with MRAs. But you're making claims about groups as a monolith, which means we're talking central dogmas here, regardless of individual hypocrisy.
Well when it comes to what women want, we're talking about female biology. If feminists SAY they don't care about masculinity, but a vaginal photoplethysmograph says different, there's a mind/body disconnect beween what women SAY they want, and what they really want. What they SAY they want is due to cultural conditioning, and what they WISH was true, in direct contrast to evolutionary biology, and what is ACTUALLY true.
>This is all utter nonsense. Apply yourself.
You think feminists don't view male sexuality as problematic? What feminists have you talked to?
And most straight women don't identify as feminist.
>The more successful experiences one has with something, the more they like it. The more unsuccessful experiences they have with something, the more they dislike it. What you just said is utterly false for many people, because some actually learn how to get good at things, like sex and relationships. Others never really get good at it, and think their failures have given them insight into the realities that the successful ones have missed.
The men who sleep with the most women have a negative view of women. They don't fail with women. They succeed. And in their success at getting laid around the world, after countless experiences with women in every country, their romantic idealized notions of women fall by the wayside, their illusions are shattered, and primal female animal is laid bare.
>only women take characteristics from their sexual partners
>I'm not a cherry-picking virgin
ayy what is human what is love
>The men who sleep with the most women have a negative view of women.They don't fail with women. They succeed. their romantic idealized notions of women fall by the wayside, their illusions are shattered, and primal female animal is laid bare.
why would that give them a negative view of women?
you're presupposing that everyone shares your ideals of romance and that it's the only meaningful interaction available between a man and woman.
>Well when it comes to what women want, we're talking about female biology.
Biological reductionism is one of the most retarded, elementary level fallacies in social discourse. I'm starting to lose my patience with you.
>What feminists have you talked to?
Both moderate and radfems, as I studied statistics as applied to sociology. The vast majority were modfems who had healthy sex lives and took offense to expressions of sexuality only in forms that most normalfags dislike anyway.
>And most straight women don't identify as feminist.
Sure, in the world that resides inside that fantastically fascinating head of yours.
If they're not happy then they've failed to achieve what the rest of us find fulfilling in relationships. There are many women for whom your imaginative and pitiable generalizations don't fit. Your inability to find them is your own failure. The mentally healthy solution is to not then complain that success was not possible in the first place.
It's been fun, but I have work in the morning. I hope you reflect on how identical this conversation has felt to my conversations with radfems. Naw, who am I kidding, of course you won't.
>where is the sjw headquarters? who are the main figureheads of the movement? what are there websites, newspapers, tv stations?
you could have asked the same thing about occupy wall street or anonymous.
for a group of people to be real, they don't need their own headquarters, leaders, websites, newspapers, tv stations.
but i'm sure someone would mention jezebel, feministing, femfuture, reddit, twitter, tumblr, salon, rationalwiki, academia, universities, and point out how many corporations have absorbed sjw ideology because they don't want to offend anybody and have a pr nightmare on their hands.
because you'll figure out they have a different view of what a relationship and love means to you.
However it's not all women and to say the "primal female animal is laid bare" is prejudice because not all women are like that.
It's just a lot of them are like that and it can ruin your perspective of finding that idealized "the one."
>you're presupposing that everyone shares your ideals of romance
Pretty sure the idea of true love, and "the one" is pretty universal but I'll lay out my idea of it. You only have intimate relations with each other, you keep members of the opposite sex at an arms length to protect your partner. You help each other through the struggles of life by helping them up when they're down, and take all their flaws and bad qualities with the good.
>>>still talking about blacks when no one else brought it up
Would you like a citation since you didn't bother to read the thread?
>that's a sjw thing? that sounds like common insults a guy would use towards another guy.
>for reference the hip hop version is : pussy ass bitch, I'mma take yo bitch. etc.
To clarify: in hip hop culture, in black culture, the insult is "pussy ass bitch."
My argument is that "don't be a bitch" is what niggers say to each other, and it creates a toxic culture where people think being a man is about how many people you can shoot or how many baby mamas you can make, and not how many children you can raise as a married father.
>someone posts something on 4chan
>therefore everyone on 4chan shares that opinion
I mean I understand its a codification of reality, so you can deal with the fact you're constantly interacting with thousands of completely people at all times, but there comes a point when you have to realize you're deluding yourself.
people involved labeled themselves the "occupy wall street" movement. it's not the same thing.
4chan obviously, dozens of news shows covered this.
these were self identified groups showing solidarity whereas there is not a single person calling themselves a sjw.
this is like hipster all over again but 10 times lamer.
if a group of people start proudly taking on the label and making websites and forums and parading in the name of social justice war like some kind of transgender hippies then I'll concede.
Ayy bruh. I'm referring to this study, about sperm from ex-partners influencing current offspring:
>There is also evidence in mammals that seminal fluid affects offspring development, so semen from one male could potentially influence the development of eggs fertilized by another male (which is what we think is happening in flies).”
And I'm not a virgin. And there's nothing wrong with being a virgin, quite the opposite actually.
>why would that give them a negative view of women?
Maybe because what they had been taught about women (by women) growing up proved to be false. With more experience, they see things more clearly.
>When the true nature of women became clear in my mind, I was deeply pained, because I realized that no matter where I go and what apparent girl I fall in love with, a certain environment or trigger will uncover the excrement hiding within my angel and she will then give me her worst without a second of hesitation or moral doubt.
>because you'll figure out they have a different view of what a relationship and love means to you.
people can have casual romances with a lot of people, what is the harm if it's consensual? if dating purely to find love and companionship is what you're into there's girls that are looking for the same thing. the internet makes that a lot easier to find. some people just aren't wired that way and want to date several people before settling down.
>Biological reductionism is one of the most retarded, elementary level fallacies in social discourse.
The mind/body disconnect in women is real.
Read the book What Do Women Want.
Read some studies by Meredith Chivers and about rape fantasies in women. Some women are ashamed to admit what actually arouses them.
Women who say they don't care masculinity are probably on The Pill, which makes women more attracted to less masculine males anyway.
>Both moderate and radfems, as I studied statistics as applied to sociology. The vast majority were modfems who had healthy sex lives and took offense to expressions of sexuality only in forms that most normalfags dislike anyway.
You mean offense to males being attracted to youth and beauty? When liberals have already established that attraction is not a choice?
>Sure, in the world that resides inside that fantastically fascinating head of yours.
>If they're not happy then they've failed to achieve what the rest of us find fulfilling in relationships. There are many women for whom your imaginative and pitiable generalizations don't fit. Your inability to find them is your own failure. The mentally healthy solution is to not then complain that success was not possible in the first place.
A generalization that is true 51% of the time is more useful than the opposite. And it's useful to point out when a majority of people behave a certain way. You would also know that outliers exist.
Sleeping with women has become easier than ever. Which makes finding good loyal women who want to be wives and mothers harder than ever.
>people can have casual romances with a lot of people, what is the harm if it's consensual?
There's no harm really, but as I said someone who has a lot of flings is going to have a drastically different idea of what love and a romantic relationship ensues then a Christian who doesn't have sex until they're married.
To the Christian sex will literally be "making love" but to the sexually liberated sex isn't really about love, it's just sex.
So you have a disparity between the two parties and what they think love and a relationship entails.
the term "social justice warrior" is often used as a pejorative. it refers to a set of beliefs and behaviors that are commonly seen on the internet, in academic, etc.
it's like "feminazi." while there may be some people would proudly identify as "feminazi", they probably use a less loaded term.
and it's not as ambiguous as "hipster." people could easily make a list of things that all "social justice warriors" have in common.