Obligatory fuck Tom Cruise
There’s more than Scientology (not that it isn’t enough for that, I’m just curious) ?
His treatment of his significant others is a good example.
He’s also too rich to be a good person.
Exactly: a good person who makes a lot of money would give it away to a worthy cause, or start a worthy cause themselves…
There are changes that happen in the brain when humans gain social power (fame, wealth, status, etc.) that suppress our ability to use empathy.
It’s not that he should give away his money. It’s that when you’re that rich it’s almost impossible, neurologically, to consider how your actions hurt others.
No one rich or powerful can be a good, it’s just how human brains work.
True.
Relevant Barry’s Economics video that goes into a bit more detail on this idea:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b1vFgUi4frU
Relevant citations for those that prefer reading:
##Power and Brain Function:
- Obhi, S. S., Hogeveen, J., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2011). “Resonating with others: The effects of self-construal type on motor cortical output.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(9), 2668-2674.
- Hogeveen, J., Inzlicht, M., & Obhi, S. S. (2014). “Power changes how the brain responds to others.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 755-762.
##Wealth and Empathy Research:
- Piff, P. K., Stancato, D. M., Côté, S., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Keltner, D. (2012). “Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(11), 4086-4091.
- Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., Cheng, B. H., & Keltner, D. (2010). “Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 771-784.
- Stellar, J. E., Manzo, V. M., Kraus, M. W., & Keltner, D. (2012). “Class and compassion: Socioeconomic factors predict responses to suffering.” Emotion, 12(3), 449-459.
##Social Class and Moral Beliefs:
- Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2011). “Social class as culture: The convergence of resources and rank in the social realm.” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 246-250.
- Kraus, M. W., & Keltner, D. (2013). “Social class rank, essentialism, and punitive judgment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(2), 247-261.
##Isolation and Psychological Effects:
- Cacioppo, J. T., & Hawkley, L. C. (2009). “Perceived social isolation and cognition.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(10), 447-454. Smith, P. K., & Trope, Y. (2006). “You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 578-596.
Omfg i’ve felt like the only person taking seriously the fact that it’s inevitable that the rich will commit trump-epstein style crimes.
Thanks for sharing that!
That said, as always there are some outliers:
-
Chuck Feeney: gave away his entire $8 billion fortune
-
Andrew Carnegie: donated roughly 90% of his wealth
-
George Soros: donated roughly 76% of his wealth
-
Why fuck tom cruise?
I never liked him to be clear. But how does he suck more than normal hollywood zionist cuckolds?
Generally via a combination of Scientology devotion and his rep for being an absolute jackass on set.
I totally forgot he’s a scientologist. My knowledge of which is almost entirely from south park.
You wanna take a quick peek yourself? It’ll likely be more efficient than waiting for someone to roll out the list.
Okay, where do i go for that?
Sorry about that. You wanna take a seat? Stay awhile, and listen. 🧙🏼♂️
In the before-times, there was no “internet”, and most people largely wandered about their lives, astonishingly un full of facts, ironic details, and curious bits of wonder.
Just so, the ones who did carry those snippets of knowledge were often sought out for them, plus their expertise with and comprehension of said notions.
These days, though? Just about anyone can look something up in a heartbeat —provided they have their anti-scam goggles and their bullshit scanner switched on. ☝🏼
Good luck!
I thought itd be more complicated than looking up “tom cruize bad things”
Apparently no. Little surprised it worked quite as well as it did, tbh.
Exactly!
Might be, sure, but have you tried modifying your search terms to help filter out the ads, snake oil, agitprop, etc.? I find that using above avg reading grade words can be useful, like “scientific”, “historical”, “controversy”, etc. FWIW, this is an extremely useful skill, and your effort will pay off for you, though you may not realize it until it has. 😁
Every time I plan to see or avoid a movie, I first check with what Anne Hathaway has to say about it.
I Hathaway of going about these things.
I always ask “Annie, is it okay?”
I wanna be a baller, shot caller, 20 inch rims, on the impala
Shakespeare? Is that you?
Dost thou really?
Yeth
The news stories about what a big bomb this is are so consistent and so numerous it starts to feel a little inorganic. Like maybe the powers that be aren’t so happy when a movie pokes fun at the powers that be.
I want to go see this.
Nah. The reviewers I listened to pointed out that Birdman, which has certain similarities to Digger, cost like 15 million to make. That 135 million in extra production wasn’t all going to Tom Cruise and the Church of Scientology, those fucks made their roll either way, and the new Warner Bros makes it even more if you pay to see it.
Wait you’re telling me no one wanted to see a movie about an aging oil magnate during a fuel shortage and a climate disaster? Surely Tom Cruise doing a funny little dance is all that is needed to make this character who represents the worst scum of the earth into a relatable figure?
Honestly the only good part of this movie seems to be the casting, they got Cruise to play human garbage. That’s spot on great job.
It’s satire and this comment just shows that you absolutely have not actually seen this movie.
Imagine being this media illiterate, that you could list all the reasons why the audience shouldn’t like someone and then you assume you’re supposed to because a famous actor plays him.
You understand it’s satire, right? Not some kind of Exxon Mobil puff piece?
Love the arts, fuck Paramount and every piece of content associated with them.
I have to wonder how many viewers Tom Cruise pulls on his name alone these days.
I wrote this movie off immediately because it was being marketed as the “Next Tom Cruise Movie!!”
I think the box office numbers show how many people Tome Cruise’s name pulls in because him starring in it is the only thing anyone knows about it.
Enough for an indie film, not enough for a major theatrical release.
Right, those numbers seem like a sharp decline for Tom Cruise imo.
I think people’s general sentiment about him is turning and he doesn’t pull the numbers that they assumed he would here.
I’m sure his influence on the box office is proportional to the type of movie, like him being in an action movie will certainly increase the box office because he is in reliably solid action movies.
But I don’t think people care about his name outside of those types of movies.
Has anyone seen this? I’m kinda intrigued after reading the article but i figured it could be a viral marketing stunt or some shit like that. I often find interesting art/media will have people firmly in the love or hate camp and this seems to be one of those…
I went to see this movie in the cinema a few days ago, and I have to say I absolutely loved this movie and I laughed my ass off for hours even though I’m not usually one to love comedic movies. I think it’s not for everyone but I thought it was hilarious. The cinematography was fantastic (if you love producers like Wes Anderson) and the story ended up being really serious and touching in the end. A social commentary on power, wealth, stupidity and climate change. 10/10 would recommend. I haven’t heard or read any of the discourse around tom cruise or this movie so maybe I’m not in on the context around this movie but I thought it was a masterpiece.
I hope Tom Cruise gets contagious ass cancer and passes it on to all his Scientologist friends.
In this age of massive media consolidation, it’s our responsibility to support as many indie gems as possible, while assuring that every major project by the corporate behemoth flops hard.
As we have all been told, a solid metric of movie quality is how much money it brings in, or doesn’t.
Digger?! I barely know her!
I hadn’t heard of the movie until seeing this article, and I make it to the movie theater once a month or so. Was there any advertising for it at all?
Not really. And what ads there were came off as a confusing mess.
I saw The Odyssey a couple of weeks ago, and it was trailed then. I thought the trailer was good enough to put it on my mental I’ll probably watch this when it comes to a streaming service I’m already paying for list, which is pretty much as good as a trailer can do on its own.
Yes … and all it was is Tom Cruise is Digger…
It was posted about right here dozens of times in the last months.
There were a couple just yesterday.
Something created with the explicit intent to generate wealth isn’t art.
I guarantee you a good portion of the art you say you like was created to generate wealth.
I’m very aware that the things I enjoy are products.
What if said art is a key function of, say, a fed psyop? I mean, that shit’s worth millions these days. Not to mention the uncoubtable classics that were born of purely transactional interests. I mean, if you’re gonna motto, ya gotta workshop it first. 😄
