Why is Django Unchained so good?

Why is Django Unchained so good?

Other urls found in this thread:

quora.com/What-percentage-of-people-in-America-owned-slaves-at-the-peak-of-slavery
edd.ca.gov/unemployment/Eligibility.htm
statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States#Demographics_of_TANF_recipients
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20439371
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino
acf.hhs.gov/ofa/resource/character/fy2010/fy2010-chap10-ys-final
businessinsider.com/comparing-genetic-similarity-between-humans-and-other-things-2016-5
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Because it's full of niggers

It's the action sequences

The hard core CP

It's not you just have shitty pleb taste

Tarantino makes top tier dialogue… action is meh

you sound like a faggot

The dialog punctuates the action, in my opinion.

One of the most overrated movies honestly. I found it laughable.

because it starts in the good old days back when niggers picked cotton and new their place and shows what people did wrong and how it all went to shit.

Depends on what people are are "praising", I recently watched "Pulp Fiction" for the first time, and the dialogue is top notch for the first 3/4th of the movie…

I noticed tarantino does that a lot (same for Kill Bill), he makes a good movie by hollywood standards with superb dialogue by hollywood standards… then everything kinda falls apart in the end. Not horribly bad, but it gives me distaste.

because of its anti-white undertones. I get rock hard when he talks about killing white people. I love cultural Marxist propaganda films

who told you that bs? Holla Forums?

the setting was the main thing for me, had memorable music in parts, props were awesomely done being a period piece, didnt care for the action sequences too greatly. really 'the old south' has a sorta primal mysticism about it that i cbf tryign explain but probs due to true detective.

fuck off with your strawman

Also,
fuck off back to reddit

It's inherently anti-white. During the peak of slavery, only 2% of the US population owned slaves and most of them were rich Jewish families that never beat their slaves. Slaves were valuable assets back then, they were expensive as fuck. The owners generally treated them well. Sure, there were probably some assholes that whipped the fuck out of their slaves but it was a rare occasion.

Dr. Duke explains it well

It doesn't matter how "well" they treated their slaves … they were slaves.

there were white slaves in america too. Have you heard of indentured servants? Did you know that most indentured servants remained slaves well into their middle aged years because they "broke the contract". Did you know that an indentured servant contract wasn't even recognized as a legal contract in the US?

Almost all big nations had slaves back then. Russia had the Serfs, all of the arabic countries had blacks before the US. They were the ones selling them.

Also
What is the grand difference between a slave and a modern low-wage sweatshop worker or even a mcdonalds employee in first world countries? At the end of the day its work in exchange for shelter and food, the framework just changed.

You neglected to mention that there are blacks who own their own black slaves in Africa right now.

These are all undesirable living situations, regardless of skin colors. The major difference being slavery etc. is choice and enforcement. McDicks isn't going to sick the dogs on you if you step away from the deep fryer.

They will fire you and if you are pathetic enough to be working at mcdonalds you probably won't qualify for unemployment income. So they are basically throwing you out on the street. Unless of course, you are black. You could go to the welfare department and claim SSI and get paid monthly. If you are white, you don't get this privilege.

Didn't know, wouldn't surprise me though.


Well, your options are starve or take what you get. The difference really isn't all that big.
Foxconn will, if you step away from the assembly line.

Any sources, other than "Holla Forums told me so it must be true!"?

I didn't learn this on Holla Forums, I learned it by studying real history, not the common core curriculum version. If you want to learn about it, do your own research. I'm drinking right now and don't feel like digging for info for some random faggot on Holla Forums.

So you can't actually back up any of your claims?

I don't think that's how it works kiddo


The fact that even our bums are fat would suggest that starvation isn't really an issue.


I mean, we'd have to get into the specifics, but the term "wageslave" obviously exists for a reason.

The internet seems to suggest it was between 3-5% if you're counting the north where it was illegal. If you count the south its higher quora.com/What-percentage-of-people-in-America-owned-slaves-at-the-peak-of-slavery

kek

Why is it so hard to believe anyways? Do you know who is responsible for buying slaves from Africa and shipping them to the US? It was jewish merchants. There are multiple documents that prove this. Here, i'll just post some pictures that you can drool at in confusion.

Lies from Jewish propaganda, there were only a few hundred slaves.

That's exactly how it works in the US. Unless you have a mental disorder, you won't qualify for social security if you are white.

You're right user, I should be a drooling retard who listens and believes everything he is told just like you.
And I'm sure no good Christian folk bought, sold, and/or used slave labor. It was the boogeyman!

I think you mean, if you only count the south, it's higher. That figure is based on the south alone.

DAJOOOOS was funny once upon a time, but far too many of you people operate in this vacuum of information that just radiates crazy. What is someone supposed to do with that statement? It doesn't make any sense.

edd.ca.gov/unemployment/Eligibility.htm

I see nothing about race there.

two of those pictures are from actual documents. It's not a "belief". It is concrete facts. The jews brought african slaves to the USA and they capitalized on them. This is a historical truth.

Wow, I'm sure there aren't any loopholes.

The statement "Why is it so hard to believe anyways?" is retarded because it implies that I should just believe you without substantiation of your claims. Yes, Jews brought African slaves to the USA and capitalized on them, however the majority of slave traders were white Christians.

...

Let's see the proof.

Fun fact: The first American slave owner was black.

So you're saying that the common core curriculum is correct? I don't get it. Is this supposed to be an insult?

All you've done is assert a claim without any information backing said claim.

and all you have done is cite government™ approved links. What is the difference?

who would have thought that
yes

The difference is I have provided information outside of my opinion. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

so you're saying the common core curriculum is 100% true. I see. You are a brainwashed retard, I get it.


You provided a link to a government influenced propaganda that supports your claim. Do you think of yourself as a free thinker for doing so?

look who's talking

You're right, I should be a free thinker like you and trust the common core curriculum, even though it has been proven time and time again that it is based on propaganda.

As much as I enjoy solipsism, I don't think navel-gazing has much merit when exploring a shared reality.

The likelihood of the government following the law is high enough that "random guy on an imageboard disagrees, fails to cite any sources" turns out not to be a very persuasive argument.

ikr

The government is pretty based. They know about all sorts of things and try to convey the truth. They are based as fuck. I'm so glad i'm redpilled like you.

And who sets the "law"?

Curious. It should be very easy for you to at least provide some anecdotal evidence of your claims.

Laws aren't necessarily fair, well thought out, or just, but I fail to see how that is relevant to this discussion.

My point is that they were created by the government. So if the government breaks their own laws, who's to say that they didn't make laws that were intended to be bent?

and you cited a government agency. Oy vey! You got me

They can and do create laws that are intended to be bent. Quite frequently. However, if the government is bending laws such that "we only give handouts to blacks", I would still expect there to be evidence of this. The fact that the government does bend the law does not mean that they are necessarily being bent in any and all cases that some random basement dweller claims.

Jesus christ. All you have to do is find one instance of this happening, but apparently you can't. Why would you believe something without any evidence that its occurring?

see: civil rights movement in the 60's
see: affirmative action
see: the welfare state (overwhelming number of blacks)
see: the black panthers
see: NAACP
see: modern life in the USA

Why are you so uneducated? Have you been living in a cardboard box in Detroit for most of your life?

I'm not going to cite anything because you will just discredit me based on my source. I also am pretty drunk right now and don't feel like doing research for you. I'd rather just pump out facts and watch you whine because it goes against your narrative.

I don't know what the fuck you're even trying to say


Yes. My narrative that the government gives handouts to white people too. Because that's a thing.


tumblr is that way

because you are a kid and don't care about history

No it doesn't. It only gives handouts to mentally ill whites. Show me a case where a white man got on welfare for being white. You can't. Show me a case where a black man got on welfare for being black. You can.

You are the embodiment of tumblr and you are telling me to go there? Nigger, please.

Agreed. The last 30 minutes of his movies fall apart. Pulp Fiction is surprisingly solid from beginning to end.

inglourious basterds is betterer

it's pure schlock from beginning to end

why is pulp fiction bad?

because it fucking sucks and has no meaning other than being edgy

I don't know what you're trying to say because you're unable to properly communicate ideas and make coherent arguments. If you're the samefag, I imagine being drunk isn't helping your already limited mental faculties.


statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States#Demographics_of_TANF_recipients

why does it need "meaning"?

You have to realize that whites are a majority, about 62% last time I checked, and the blacks make up about 15%.

Do you know what proportions are? Even if those figures are correct on that link you provided, it proves my point.

That includes spics because the USA is cucked. Spics are seen as white in the USA

Except it doesn't. How does it prove that "only mentally ill whites" get welfare?

but there is another category for "hispanic". I don't think it does.

Yeah, 100% hispanics. The ones who aren't are categorized as "white hispanics" and are lumped in with whites. This has been happening for a while now, I'm surprised you aren't aware of it.

What do you mean by "100% hispanic"? It's not race. White/hispanics are still hispanic

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20439371


So no, "only mentally ill whites get welfare" is not true.

Nice wordplay, faggot. I mean latinos mixed with whites.

yes, they teach that in public schools in the USA… I often point out the bad in public schools, but them mentioning indentured servants is one of the good things the history department did well in the USA.

I read some history, and I would have never learned of indentured servants due to my focus being on time periods in history where that wasn't applicable.

dude, the very link you provided before proves my point. I don't even know why we are still talking about this.

Choice. It's that simple.

We humans are the only ones that value choice over many things, even our lives. This is why every time where slavery was a thing, rebellion was too.

latino still isn't a race, and they'd still be considered hispanic.
You're probably referring to those pictures of obviously non-white people being classified as white in police arrest records.
But I'm pretty sure all those people in the picture were white/hispanic, not white/non-hispanic.

Yes it is, you fucking idiot

says who?

this was a side point and I still stand by it. My original point is that blacks proportionally get more welfare benefits than any other race in the USA

what about black hispanics? azn hispanics?

fuck Holla Forums

they are known as "mixed".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino

or maybe we're the mixed ones? :^)

nice source. I used to go to wikipedia when I was in high school. I love all the locked articles that you can't edit, I'm sure they are 100% accurate, that's why they lock them. I'm sure it's not for propaganda purposes :^)

That wasn't your original point you fucking disingenuous retard. Nobody was ever arguing against that.

yeah it was, scroll up higher, you fucking kike

holy shit you dumbass. Give me a source that says latino is a race. It's the fucking defintion of the word.

Wasn't it that white people are discriminated against when it comes to receiving welfare? ( I could be wrong, I came into the conversatino late).
That's a different claim, which is why I was focusing on the last point.

stop moving the goal posts, why don't we get back into why blacks collect most of the welfare amount while being a minority in the USA?

And to be frank with you, yes, Latino is a race. It is indigenous to middle and south america. They are brown skinned people. What more do you need?

...

...

No, it was that blacks receive more welfare than whites. There was no whining about how white cant get welfurr and were being discriminated against. I don't play that game.

It's only good if you're a faggot cuck.

except no, fucko.
Django was one of two main characters, the other one being WHITE. This white guy is not painted as a villain but rather the racist ones, being the wild west there are many of those. It would be anti white if Dr. King Schultz had betrayed Django then I would agree with you but that dude was white and because he was good to the blacks the blacks were good to him.

nice spooks

No, it's people from those regions, or who have ties to those regions. They don't need to be indigenous. You can be white and latino, but you'd be classified as latino.
Also, I'm not the one moving goal posts. If I didn't argue that you'd think the statistics were over representing white people, which is not the case.


I thought you were who said
when talked about this, and the whole "only mentally-ill whites" thing, you were talking about "reasons" instead of "numbers", at least to me.

Also, this source acf.hhs.gov/ofa/resource/character/fy2010/fy2010-chap10-ys-final gives different numbers on the chart in .

actually, the link I posted talks about TANF instead of welfare, which are different, but I thought they'd be more similar

are you retarded?

This is multiculturalism folks.

what about white mexicans?

I don't get your point

He was a jew, not a huwhite

my point is that you are trying to assess that all people are equal. You probably buy into the myth that we all came from africa and that race doesn't exist.

post scientific proof or gtfo with your schizophrenia

I bet you're one of those people that buy into the 1+1=2 myth :^)

Depends what you mean by "race". On average, in terms of DNA sequence all humans are 99.5% similar to any other humans.

In terms of DNA, all humans are 99% similar to Elephants and Giraffes. What is your point? Those small increments of a percentage make a big difference.

Schultz is a normal german name, like Müller or Schmidt. The jewish names are compound words, consisting of mostly trade goods

businessinsider.com/comparing-genetic-similarity-between-humans-and-other-things-2016-5

and your link proves me right again. Even if it's propaganda. Mammals are similar to each other but not the same. Niggers, whites, spics, asians etc.. are all sub-species of the homosapien. Just like there are different dog breeds. We aren't the same, but contain similar DNA. That's the point I was trying to get across.

Holy. Fucking. Shit

I'm not arguing this is how things should be defineid. I'm arguing "what is latino/hispanic" and what is not. Latino isn't "brown people" by the fucking definition.
This has nothing to do with "racial differences". It's just about the "white category" being "non-hispanic whites".
Please stop posting.

so much scientific knowledge

so we are all the same? Humans I mean. Are we all equal?