It should be pretty clear when I say loaded terminology.

genocidal

This is not an accusation to throw around lightly. If it was, we could say that Palestinians were once genocidal, for instance, while they were targeting Jews with violent campaigns. As terrible as it is, urban combat is going to produce unintended casualties. It’s an extremely complicated, tangled mess to uncover genocidal intent amid an active war.

colonial

The Ottoman Empire (yeah, this was so long ago that those were still around) collapsed, the British Protectorate sanctioned the country of Israel, land titles were sold to the JNF, the Palestinians besieged Jerusalem in a bid to starve all of its Jewish inhabitants to death, and Plan Dalet was spawned to rid neighboring villages of potential combatants during an active war with a stated goal of allowing anyone non-hostile to remain. Doesn’t sound very colonial to me, especially given that there was Jewish owned territory in the region, long established before this conflict, and there were no other Jewish countries.

ethnostate

Israel allowed Palestinian refugees to return. The surrounding Arab nations didn’t and don’t. What else is there to say?

I’ll never understand why people have completely made up their mind on this issue and discard all nuance. Everyone should know by now how much disinformation encircles this debacle. There’s only two primary sources here for 99% of the information that gets reported- Hamas and the IDF.

I’ve also seen far too many people retrospectively hold modern Israel accountable for actions that occurred 80-120 years ago. This was long enough back that there were still Empires and colonies in existence.

deleted by creator

If you fill a sentence with enough loaded terminology I hear it makes it more true

Edit: If you downvote a sentence enough I heard it makes it less true

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

That is what I’m asserting I am stating it as fact that is objective.

You’ve already made your opinion clear.

Aside from your own personal anecdotal opinion about how much you found the movie to be easy to follow do you have anything to refute my statement?

Already been over this in another comment where I explained why I thought Nolan’s use of these devices fit for Oppenheimer, this “conversation” was over a while ago. And best of all, Oppenheimer won an academy award for best director, best adapted screenplay, best editing- basically any criteria associated with your “critiques”. You don’t have to take my word for it, you can defer to much better film critics than either of us.

Please look up the definitions to the $10 words you’re using in your $1 sentences.

Cute.

The success of the movie is completely irrelevant in context to this discussion.

What? I bet you gave no thought to this sentence before you stated it. Of course it matters to this discussion. The entire rhetoric coming from both of you revolves around the alleged failures of the film’s methodology.

Just because you found it easy to follow along personally doesn’t mean that the person that you’re responding to is incorrect in this assessment of the movie.

I just explained the difference between subjectivity and objectivity and I’m not going to waste my time explaining how it applies to a claim of “bad storytelling” techniques again.

You’re just going to have to accept the fact that opinions are not accurate measurements of the efficacy of a methodology.

But here not so much.

Completely disagree with this opinion. The title of the movie is Oppenheimer. It would stand to reason that the film would include an introspective character study into the incredibly conflicted mind of a tortured physics genius.

In other words, it’s bloody obvious that the narrative was going to get dense.

The nonlinear storytelling was a deliberate device used to build suspense regarding the two contradictory imperatives tearing at the man’s morals, and I never once found the setting of any particular scene unable to be deduced by context.

You can’t prove the other person’s opinion on the movie is wrong just by saying you personally liked the movie.

Calling the first viewing of the movie a chore and the film’s storytelling bad was not an expression of opinion, but rather a pontification. It’s an attempt at declaring objective fact that is so demonstrably wrong that it falls apart even given anecdotal evidence. Unfortunately. you seem to be doing much the same in your comments. Your personal feelings about the movie have nothing to do with whether the movie was a success or failure.

You’ve solved my secret username puzzle.

Also, yes.

Very well written comment that will no doubt be under appreciated lol

? Choose your battles more carefully.

You made an implicit assumption

I don’t even know how to continue this conversation. I didn’t have to assume anything about Imperial Japan’s reception to alternative methods of prompted surrender to arrive at the conclusion that the theoretical devastation of Fascism proliferating is at all comparable to the nuclear bombs that were deployed.

Three things:

-This is moving the goal post of the argument that I was replying to and irrelevant to this conversation.

-Theorizing about the consequences at stake in the war doesn’t assume anything retrospectively. The decision to deploy nukes was not made with the knowledge we possess after the fact.

-It’s very likely that any other option that would finally result in the complete cessation of an enemy as ideologically tenacious as Imperial Japan would’ve far exceeded a price that was able to be paid that late into the second world war.

From what I understand this is not the main point of contention among historians. That Imperialist Japan, like all Axis powers, was a cancer that demanded amputation was not the justification for the deployment of nukes. Rather, the debatable justification was their leadership’s inability to surrender unconditionally.

Regardless, the plot was a chore the first time through and that’s not great storytelling.

I can disprove your assertion without even getting into the philosophy of storytelling simply via the fact that my first viewing of Oppenheimer was not laborious whatsoever. Nolan’s choice to dive into a more esoteric narrative of physics was my favorite part of the film.

I disagree. The proliferation of Fascist ideology, in Asia alone, would’ve far eclipsed the devastation of two nuclear payloads.

Nonlinear narrative is not necessarily a bad thing, and neither is complicated exposition.

If you want to strawman my argument and put words in my mouth, you can go infect some other comment thread with your smooth brain. The concept of genocide requires more criteria than just “the death of innocents”. Get a clue.