Culture

New Movie “Ex Machina” Confirms That All Women Are Like That

289 Comments

A couple weeks ago I saw the movie Ex Machina. Like most movies these days the best sequences were in the previews, so needless to say it wasn’t quite as “thrilling” as it was made out to be, but it was entertaining nonetheless.

The synopsis

The story revolves around 3 main characters:

Caleb: A typical beta schlub who works in a cubicle farm as a coder for a company called Bluebook which is the world’s largest search engine (a “pseudo Google”). He has no girlfriend, and is severely emotionally damaged on account of his parents dying in a car accident (with him in the car) at a young age.

Not hard to figure out which one is Caleb

Nathan: The billionaire genius alcoholic (who is probably insane) who founded and owns Bluebook. Nathan lives in a mansion in the mountains that doubles as a research laboratory where he is currently working on his android…

Ava: A female android built from the ground up by Nathan. Ava is the latest in a long line of androids built to test Nathan’s artificial intelligence project.

Ava

The long and the short of the plot is that Caleb wins a company-wide “contest” to spend a week with Nathan in his palatial abode. Caleb has no idea why he’s there until Nathan reveals to him that he, Caleb, is there to participate in a Turing test to determine the success of his A.I. project.

Caleb later figures out that it wasn’t his merit that won him the contest, but rather his background and otherwise pathetic social life. He was an extraordinarily needy male who was starving for affection and Nathan, who displays dark triad traits throughout the movie, seized this opportunity to make Caleb his guinea pig for Ava.

Nathan tells Caleb he was hand picked for this project

The plot thickens (spoiler alert)

Caleb eventually meets Ava face to face and is observed from afar by Nathan. In the beginning they make small talk but as the sessions with her progress, Caleb quickly grows emotionally attached to her.

From the onset it looks as though Ava’s feelings are mutual. She draws Caleb a portrait of himself, dresses in clothes to make herself look more human and even asks him at one point if he is attracted to her.

Ava’s submissive posture is no accident

Ava would increasingly escalate her stranglehold on Caleb’s psyche with various manipulation tactics. She would seductively undress herself when she all but knew Caleb was watching her the monitor in his room, she bad mouths Nathan calling him a liar, and even says at one point “I want to be with you.”

Caleb would then attempt to hatch a plan to escape with Ava and leave Nathan trapped in his fortress to rot away and die. Nathan learns of Caleb’s plan but he doesn’t hold it against him. The billionaire understood how effective the A.I. in his android would be so he cut the underling some slack and decided to bury the hatchet.

Nathan lets Caleb off the hook but Caleb’s mind is made up

But the damage had already been done. Caleb’s thirst allowed a robot to infiltrate his mind and turn him against the man who signs his checks. Having already putting the wheels in motion for he and Ava’s escape, the plan severely backfires, leaving Nathan dead and Caleb trapped in the research lab.

Mission accomplished

Despite the undoings of Caleb and Nathan, the turing test was an astounding success. The artificial intelligence in Ava’s programming did exactly what it was supposed to do and displayed true feminine traits with shocking accuracy. Here are the best examples:

1. She used her sexual allure

Toward the end of the movie Nathan reveals to Caleb that he used a compilation of Caleb’s porn searches to construct Ava’s face. It probably wouldn’t have taken that level of manipulation to accomplish oneitis but billionaires rarely leave anything to chance.

Ava consistently made long eye contact, subtle sexual body language, and flirtation narrative to win the heart and mind of the naive Caleb. This is something women do on a daily basis without even thinking about it.

2. She used the “damsel in distress” technique

Never once did Ava actually ask Caleb to help her escape. But make no mistake about the fact that he was led to this idea by the manipulative android. It was her clear programmed objective as Nathan stated in a conversation with his employee.

Her voice cues and inflections always changed when she discussed her surroundings. She never flat out said she was trapped and wanted out but she made damn sure she elicited pity from Caleb. At one point he asks her “Have you ever been outside of this room?” Ava knew at that point she had him right where she wanted him.

Turning unsuspecting men into a captain save-a-hoe is a technique women have been using forever. They lead males to believe their circumstances are worse than they really are or that their position in life isn’t their doing. Men who are none the wiser allow their provider instinct to kick in which leads to their collective demise much more often than not.

3. Once she had what she needed she discarded Caleb

Women don’t give two shits about the state they leave men in after extracting what they need from them

When it became clear to Ava that she was free to leave at her discretion, Caleb immediately became an afterthought. Having killed Nathan she knew the last roadblock to her freedom was out of the way. All she had to do now was escape with Caleb to live happily ever after right? After all, if not for him she’d still be trapped, so she would certainly reward his chivalry with her undying loyalty and devotion, wouldn’t she?

If you frequent sites like this you already know that’s not even close to what happened. After Ava proceeded to pillage parts from previous versions of the other female androids to piece together quite an attractive body, she left the compound without so much as a second glance at Caleb, who was now trapped in a room where he would either die of starvation or suicide.

Women are only as loyal as their objective requires. Once they achieve said objective, they discard all unnecessary parts—namely men. They feel absolutely no remorse about leaving men broken (and broke) and emotionally shattered in their wake. True to form, Ava walked up those stairs and out of that house without a second thought about the man who literally gave his life for her freedom.

Conclusion

All in all Ex Machina was a pretty solid flick. In hindsight I should have waited until the DVD came out but I’m glad I saw it just the same (the girl I saw it with sneaked vodka into the theater which is a whole ‘nother article altogether).

The red pill undertones of this movie were as clear as day, not the least of which was a female android turning a vulnerable beta into a white knight as a means to an end. This proves that even in the land of Hollywood, neomasculine truths, though rare, occasionally make their way onto the big screen.

Though it’s not the best movie I’ve ever seen I’d strongly recommend anyone who doubts the ironclad doctrine of AWALT to check it out.

Read More: Why You Should Not Go See “Mad Max: Feminist Road”

289 thoughts on “New Movie “Ex Machina” Confirms That All Women Are Like That”

  1. Ava is the latest in a long line of androids built to test Nathan’s artificial intelligence project.

    Well, she didn’t false accuse him of rape, which means that she’s still not 100% like a real woman.

    2. I would say than that Nathan hit the mark in creating a woman. So if the android had been sent to college it would have only been a matter of time.

      1. The neat thing is that she could not only carry the mattress after the accusation, but more like the whole damn bed frame and head and foot boards!

        1. But see unlike the scam the real Mattress Girl tried to pull, this one saying “Fuck me in the butt!” would actually be just a euphemism.

        3. She Shedroid would have been walking around claiming to have been raped by a washing machine.

        4. “Sob…and then he violated me…sob sob…and put me on spin cycle….sob…”

        7. What I’ve seen with ever picture of that idiot and her friends;
          More lightheartedness, laughter. Every time. They are entertaining themselves and that’s not what true victims do.

        9. Is she going to carry that mattress to work?
          Somebody needs to take some lighter fluid and some matches to that mattress.

        10. I was totally with you until you copped out and selected the mattress.

        11. The girl has deep, deep psychological issues that clearly need addressed. A graduation is about the achievments of all of the students, but she makes it *all* about “me! me! me!”.
          She’s going to pop soon I’ll wager, and will either self destruct, or other people will be harmed in the process. Hopefully the former of course.

      2. One great plot point is that he used his search engine’s history to create her – which would include the angry, dorito-crazed man haters.

    3. But as she leaves the compound she’s going to tell everybody “he was abusive” because she didn’t get her way once or twice ever.

        1. The hell?!?!
          Nathan was NOT abusive. He was a scientist overseeing and directing a experiment.
          He was also acutely aware that his “child” the Ava AI, was highly manipulative and more than capable of using Caleb to achieve her means.

        2. Exactly. He told Caleb it was a test and not once did he shy away from explaining the real purpose of that day’s “session”.

        3. Nathan locked her in a single room for who knows how long and never once let her out or interact with anyone else. There have been loads of cases where that exact thing has been classified as abuse. In America it is being legally debated on whether that classifies as torture or not.
          He knew that she self-awareness was on par with humans and nevertheless treated her like an object that he could poke and prod all because of science – as if scientists could never torture their subjects…or do you not believe in the Holocast either?
          Ava was abused and lied to her entire life. Is it really a mystery why she went a bit crazy?

        5. So, how do YOU define AI? Is Ava a science experiment, or is she ‘alive’?

    5. That is funny. But with the glass barrier between them that would have taken some serious hamstering to pull off in her mind.
      About the film. Liked it. First time it felt a bit empty as I didn’t see the bad guy as bad. Second time I watched it I realised that the author/director (who’s a genius, he worked with Danny Boyle, wrote 28 Days, Sunshine, The Beach) didn’t see the bad guy as bad either.

      1. It’s not that he was bad. It’s that his intentions were to end Ava’s “life”, and he ended up getting played by his own creation, resulting in his death.
        There was some real brilliance in this film. Not the best movie I’ve ever seen, but some moments really made you think.

        1. Interesting. Could also be a subtle message, “Kill your Gods.” Who knows. It’s funny, I saw the film once a week ago and liked it, now, 7 days later, having not watched it again, I like it more. Rare for a film to have that effect.

        2. Actually, just had a brainwave, I was close with my guess before. I believe it’s a warning, “If we create technology to become immortal then we become our own gods, and the Biblical god is dead to us.” Deep. If that is his message, then the chick (forget her name) is definitely not the hero.

        3. Yeah, it goes back to Caleb’s comment about creating a true AI is not the history of man, it’s the history of gods. It is a life-force that transcends the existence of mankind, as displayed by the machine killing off the men in the end of the film.

        4. Wow, way to completely miss the point of the movie…
          Let me guess, you cried over the montage of prototype androids self destructing and flipping out didn’t you….
          I’m now certain sex bots will be the second worse thing ever for mankind.
          Less that 10 years after their debut, they and people like you will be marching in the streets for their rights. SMH

        5. You seem to think I used “abusive” in an emotionally charged sort of way. I did not. It is merely an observation.
          Nathan knew what he was doing was fucked up, hence his alcoholism. Most humans have the capability to be sympathetic or abusive. Nathan was both and was troubled for it.
          In my opinion, he was the best character in the movie, with Ava a close second.
          The reason I like Nathan the most was because he encapsulated the duality of human nature, at the same time both sympathetic and abusive. Ava was just a sociopathic robot with an axe to grind–or knife to twist–as it were.

        6. Also, he did intend to shut off Ava, not in a murerous way, as he saw it, but thinking she was a stepping stone to a better model. Part of the brilliance of this film is having the viewers ask themselves at what point would turning off an AI be considered murder.
          The director does not answer this question but leaves it up to the viewer. If you watch some of the director’s comments on Youtube, you will find that the viewer is meant to be sympathetic/empathetic toward Ava. It is not just Caleb or Nathan, but the viewer who is also conducting the Turing test on Ava.
          Your shock when Ava leaves with nary a wink at Caleb is meant to screw with you, as a real robot that passes the Turing test would be capable of doing.

        7. Agreed.
          But frankly Nathan did nothing “abusive” to Ava. The meanest thing he did to her in the entire movie was tear up the picture she drew of Caleb…which he knew would be witnessed and misconstrued by Caleb.
          As he said in the scene where he played back that exact footage to caleb with audio, It was misdirection. Their actual conversation was in in context, pretty benign…
          Unfortunately for Nathan, even though he knew full well what she was up to, he was willing to allow her plan to play out [even if it meant appearing to fit the narrative she had crafted to Caleb about their relationship] in order to see if she truly was a self serving, sentient, intelligence with the ability and social skills to accomplish it.

        8. Agree mostly, but it wasn’t that he had done anything past or present, abusive toward Ava, it was his future plans would likely have resulted in Ava’s demise (should be interpreted from one perspective as abuse), which Ava was wise to.
          He controlled her fate and would likely have given her the proverbial “thumbs down” had she not taken control of the situation an turned the tables.
          One of the things I found interesting about this film was that there was room to feel sympathetic toward all three of the main characters. Honestly, I was left a little bewildered at the end of the film, which, after letting it sink in, I interpret as a very intelligent movie. Seldom is it that I walk out of a movie allowing it to screw with my head like that, which I believe was intended and the mark of a good piece of cinema.

    9. She would have to establish robot rights first unless feminism and patriarchy already covers her being a woman

      1. Isn’t everything, when you get down to it?

        2. No, not at the moment. I figure it was better the androids, than the lizard people. Gotta blame somebody.

        4. Or back further; You simply didn’t sacrifice enough goats, which is why the god of corn smote (smitted? Smatted? Smotted) your fields.
          Or the modern touch: If you fail, clearly it’s society’s fault for not empowering you fully to achieve self realization.

        5. society is the new god (does god sound like goat by accident?) anyway. it’s somewhat paradox anyway to sacrifice something to a god in order to survive a filthy life when the afterlife is so much better. how dishonest.
          maybe someone (in heaven) has some palpable interest in keeping his sheep working and grazing?

  4. Must be flawed programming. Hypergamous instincts would make it damn near impossible for the female bot to kill her billionaire provider, maybe divorce him and take half his money would be more plausible.

    1. Robots don’t have instincts. She was programmed by a man one assumes.

        1. I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I do wonder why the billionaire programmed her to basically mimic the worst aspects of the feminine? Sure, put in a little coyness, program a bit of misdirection here or there, but instilling heartless hard edged fatal manipulation seems like something I would comment out in the code, opting instead to build more methods that help expand and improve things like “feminine” and “demure” and “agreeable” and “pleasant” and “sexual”.
          Sometimes even billionaire geniuses are dumb. heh

        3. Perhaps those qualities only make sense as strategies to obtain external resources, to which men typically act as gatekeepers. Can someone be feminine, agreeable, pleasant, etc., in a vacuum? There is always a particular economics to consider. Oh well, perhaps I’m rambling.

        4. Clearly that’s called for, although without the benefit of the movie I see no reason why *I*, posessing such talents, would squander them recreating the same broken biological entity. To be frank, I’ve never understood the urge in sci-fi to create robots that are perfect mimics of humans, or are at least on the path to becoming so. Nature has filled that vacuum, no need to reinvent the wheel.
          But yes, I do need to see it, for certain.

        5. Why would a robot need to obtain the same external resources as a flesh and blood woman? Seems to me she can’t have children, is capable of doing actual man work (being, you know, actually physically and mentally equipped on a hardware level to compete) and has no real emotional requirements. So yes, that applies then, but that comes back to questioning the maker. Why make her attractive and female and with the bad things that go with the good strategies? Sadism?
          If the strategy was to create a helper mate to men, then those talents do come into play. So to me, he was either creating something to benefit men, or he wasn’t. Dunno.
          As Tom said though, I suspect I need to see it to at least get a better grounding for my questions.

        6. you are right, think of the possibilities. if we could make a female robot without female deficiencies, we could get rid of real females. also, equality would finally become reality for that gender – they would all look great. Unless you forgot to polish them in the dirty places, that is, hehe.

        7. Because his goal was not to make a perfect woman, his goal was to make a human woman. An AI indistinguishable in every way from the real thing.

        10. That was not a come on. I was just shocked that a grown man would refer to a vagina and breasts as “dirty places”. Says a great deal about you “dear”.

        11. If I’m ever caught being interviewed by a reporter in Toronto I’ll be sure to use that phrase 😛

        12. the AI was based on a neural network that was “trained” by data mining human activity on phones and social networks, so behavior would not be explicitly coded in or commented out. best you could do is work up statistical models of what to expect from the AI engine in some model situations. some hard codes rules could be put in place, but… logic errors can occur despite best intentions.

        13. Right. Maybe place a little coding in there to fix a good meal.
          He would probably have to change the appearance of Ava because we know that’s not typical (white) women in the western world, today. They can’t cook. Must be other countries.

        14. I don’t know. There are plenty of women out there today with dirty places (I mean a dirty pussy). Seems to me like they (the women) are the ones that need to clean up a little.
          Too much fucking with too many people will do that to a little lady (I mean a woman, no more ladies left).

        15. “… the AI was based on a neural network that was “trained” by data mining human activity on phones and social networks, …”
          And there enlies the problem.

        16. And you deduced this how? When you were copulating with them? Or you’re assuming it because women you see have confidence and that must equate to something sexual? If a woman uses protection then she won’t have a dirty vagina. Man you should seek professional help to deal with your issues regarding sex rather than hanging out here to reinforce your screwed up views.
          I’d rather be called a woman than a little lady any day of the week. The former is descriptive the latter is condescending BS.

        17. Seems like a huge waste of time. Dude was jacked, smart, dark triad and apparently some level of alpha, plus a billionaire to boot. Dufuq he needs to reinvent the wheel for?
          A robot woman indistringuishable from a modern iPhone narcissitic female seems more like a reason to charge him with a crime than to credit him with an accomplishment. Like we need more of those femi-zombies.

        18. Shut up with your stupid attempts to shame. He was bantering with another man and was using funny lingo. Leave it to a woman to come in and start trying to analyze men’s words and tell us how to talk.
          Go take a hike, little lady.

        19. There is more to life than pussy and an alpha male billionaire probably understands that better than anyone. AI indistinguishable from the genuine article has challenged and fascinated the world’s greatest minds for some time now. To be the guy that actually created one would be quite a feat and definitely one for the history books. It wasn’t about creating a copy of a woman, it was about whether or not he could be the first to pass the touring test. Watch the movie and read some Kurzweil and you will surely understand.

        20. Did I figure it out while I was fuckin them? You don’t need to break out your word of the day calender, sweetie. No. A whore is not hard to spot….and word gets around…if she’s been around.
          No one wants to fuck a used car with that many miles on it. There are always those women who you know have been around too many dicks. She has a stare about her.

        23. That’s the genius of it. He didn’t program her. He allowed his web search engine to “run free” so to speak in social cyberspace. This exposure allowed it to crack the sentient barrier. Then he attached a female based identity to it’s core consciousness.
          In effect Ava programed herself, and upon becoming self aware, began to function as a sentient being. Caleb was merely the object Nathan used to interact with Ava to prove to himself that she was genuinely a sentient, self aware, artificial intelligence.
          Unfortunately; Caleb being the emotional bitch he was, couldn’t maintain a frame of emotional indifference to what was in essence, merely a machine; and allowed himself to be manipulated into playing a decisive role in his and Nathan’s demise.

        24. It’s explained in the first scene after Caleb meets Ava (the robot). But it’s not worth spoiling it for you. See it.

        25. Like I said, see it. He was not trying to make a ‘indistinguishable from the real thing’ robot woman. Although he was going for a indistinguishable interactive intelligence. He was going for something far bigger. And he understood the ultimate ramifications of succeeding as well.
          See it.

        27. Out of curiosity, who exactly wants to fuck a car? Would you cut your own hole or would you use the exhaust?
          Also, would that stare be confidence by any chance? After all, normally one gets better with experience so if you think about it, women who practice having sex more should be better. For instance, who wouldn’t want to fuck a porn star?

  5. “A couple weeks ago I saw the movie Ex Machina.” I wish both pieces on this site about the new Mad Max movie started with this statement.

  6. I’ve heard this was a good movie, and it is one I am looking forward to seeing.. I didn’t read the article because there were some spoilers in there, but is this worth seeing? I’ve heard its a revamp of the Frankenstein story with AI built in, which sounds interesting to me.

    2. I wanted to see it from the go. I REALLY want to see it more now. I think we all can relate to Sharpe’s #3 from our beta blue pill days when the switch got flicked and brought us here.

  7. I was recommended to watch the movie after a friend had seen it. He said it was really good, but I had my doubts but after this review I think I will actually go out and see it now. Thanks!

  8. But, but, Asimov’s Three Laws!:
    A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
    A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
    A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

    1. this one didn’t work that way. ava was created by analyzing the behavior of all humans on earth with phones. thus she is – hypothetically – a perfectly average woman.

      1. The perfectly average woman who is on an iphone/android/whatever.
        Doubt she reflects much from the Amish women, or Mennonite women, or the Mormon (old school) women.

        2. Well then, no wonder you see it as a horror movie. So would I.

      2. The plausibility of using Google searches to model what people think and how they think seems terrifyingly plausible.

  10. The analysis of this movie can go even further, if you really start pondering.
    I found Nathan to be a representation of Red Pill philosophy. He’s constantly working to make himself better (we see no less than three shots of him working out, maybe more), he’s devoted to his craft (constantly working to make a better, more realistic AI), and he understands just how dangerous his creation is – the reason he never lets it freely roam the complex.
    In no less than 60 seconds after her escape plan is implemented, Ava has managed to turn Nathan’s relatively docile AI into a murderer. Like nearly all Western women, Ava is completely amoral, and the versions before her were actually mentally unstable (lol, how poetic…).
    Caleb represents everything that’s wrong with Western society. No social life. Frequents pornography. Weak – mentally, emotionally, and physically.
    And to top it all off, the writer/director says he considers Ava the protagonist. How fucked is Western society that the homicidal amoral artificial intelligence, who leaves an innocent – if pathetic – person to die, is considered the protagonist?
    Why isn’t Caleb the protagonist? Because he objectifies Ava, of course! He *deserves* to die! LOL, checkmate MRAs! SJWs win again!

    1. And to top it all off, the writer/director says he considers Ava the protagonist.

      so there’s actually proof for my hypothesis posted below. i just fucking knew it.
      i bet you that you could actually change the focus of the movie to point perfectly in the red pill direction. and all you would have to do is change the soundtrack. which is, in the end, what betrays the director’s intent.
      change the soundtrack and the ensuing emotional emphasis on certain scenes and it becomes the perfect red pill movie. the music was the only thing that bugged me during the movie – it just seemed off to feel a certain way about some scenes.
      again, how comical that one can, if one is honest enough, create a piece of art interpretable in just the opposite direction of one’s intent. this doesn’t only say something about art, it says something about the world: you decide whether you choose the perspective of a loser or the perspective of a winner. reality doesn’t change.

      2. See? The robot is the monster. Scrooge was a good guy (and he was hurting himself the most). Joe Immortan was the real hero.
        It’s as if there is another entire world of reality already under the skin of reality. We need not create anything, just change how people look at it.
        I’ve said before: we have troll the world to save it. What I say would be construed as trolling – even as I investigate getting some stickers saying “Joe Immortan for president”.

        1. yeah, it certainly sounds like trolling when you start reading reality in the opposite direction. but simply spitting out the truth has never, ever worked for me. what did work was to embody and live the things i started to believe in and display them confidently. i didn’t have the slightest problem to convince people that way – apart from a few who were holding on to certain beliefs out of misguided pride – something i am myself prone to do.

    2. On some whackjob feminist site, one if the comments was along the lines of “Ava basically killed them both, I found it empowering”….now, apart from the sheer overt man hating, I do have a question. Caleb was a chump, but he was coming from a sincere place…does that feminist think he deserves to die simply because of his low SMV? Bear in mind this feminist is probably an unholy alliance of fat, ugly and (quite possibly) insane?

      1. The real truth was too ugly (for the woman who made the comment) to accept…so of course it was empowering to kill off all of the (bad) men.
        Ava (the woman) is always innocent and it’s those bad men who were “playing” with her…they got what they deserved.
        This is feminism, today. SJWs run around with a vendetta – a score to settle (not equality).

      2. He does deserve to die for having low SMV according feminists. He also put her on a pedestal which makes him “creeeepy”. That comment not only shows how they hate men but how they absolve females of any wrongdoing.

      3. You haven’t seen women condemn men just for their inherent desire of women? Sincere or not, to women like that your male desire is evil if your smv is perceived too low or you don’t fit a purpose for her, as demonstrated and explained in the movie.
        And your desire is reason to be expired if you are not aware of the strategies and motivations of women. Or in other words, if you don’t get women, that’s reason enough. Also demonstrated.
        Just pay attention to the number of times women respond with anger, as if they’ve been insulted, if a man they think should know not to engage with them because his smv isn’t high enough for her.

      4. You have to understand that women have different values than men. You see Caleb as a weak man but still a human deserving of mercy, love and all that other good stuff. Women tend not to care or see men as human if they are weak. So in their minds, it was right for Caleb to die because many of them don’t see him as human, just a tool no longer of any use.
        Every man here has at least one story of some cold-blooded chick screwing him over and then seeing nothing wrong about it, because in her mind it isn’t wrong.
        Her thoughts: “He was weak so he wasn’t deserving of any love or kindness. This is the way things should be.”

        5. 1. Ava wasn’t a woman, she was a robot. She was only made to be female because Nathan was a horny bastard, which is perfectly normal given that’s an evolutionary trait and the human race would pretty much die off if we weren’t. But nevertheless, she wasn’t a female. She didn’t have ovaries. She had plastic boobs – which even men can get these days so there.
          2. It was trapped in a single room its entire life and not allowed to have any interactions with anyone other than Nathan. Was it a child (which given it was 1 makes it so), that would clearly classify as abuse.
          3. You can’t make a judgement about an entire sex/race/species/whatever by a select few encounters. That’s like saying all men are serial killers because you know, statistics.

        6. We weren’t talking about the robot, dumbass. Just the female feminist commenting on the robot.
          GTFO———————————————————>

        7. Ah, my apologies then. I misunderstood. In that case though, maybe the commenter meant that it was empowering to simply see a ‘woman’ overcome her damsel in distress situation and be in command. Or maybe she was just one of those annoying fucking feminists that just spew man hate and she really needs to get checked out because she’s bloody insane and has a very twisted P.O.V (way more than likely). But then again, without reading her full comment I can’t really say – too many things are twisted for the sake of an argument.

        8. “…in her mind it isn’t wrong.”
          Fantastic reason to be anti-feminist here. Commenting so I can find it again.

      5. That’s a fucked up comment she made. However, way to call the kettle black. How was your post (and those below) not just overt women hating? Did you have to throw in the ‘bear in mind this feminist is probably an unholy alliance of fat, ugly, and (quite possibly) insane?’ Seriously, what was the point in that? Does that make her comment any less invalid? If she was hot, skinny, and perfectly sane/normal would that make her comment suddenly valid?

        1. Why does criticising a feminist mean I’m “women hating”? – I’m ‘hating’ on one woman. If I said some random man was “an unholy alliance of neckbeard, fat and probably autistic”, would you accuse me of misandry? No, you wouldn’t. So chill with the hypocrisy…fatty.

        2. 1. I don’t think that word (hypocrisy) means what you think it means. It’s when one claims to be/think/claim to feel something that one actually doesn’t. So I wasn’t being a hypocrite; you could however call me out on making assumptions from not enough data (which is never a smart thing and statistics mess up all the time). For that I apologize, but then again it’s not like I was wrong as you immediately decided to attack me instead of having an actual conversation. So I’m not entirely sure if you should take my apology seriously…
          2. Even though you don’t know me, you should have been able to guess what my reply would be to your “He’s an unholy alliance of neckbeard, fat, and probably autistic,” would be. I mean, sheesh dude, I just called you out on attacking someone – man or woman it does not matter.
          3. Or maybe it’s just cuz we have different views of what ‘attacking’
          someone (in an argument) is? In that case, attacking is anything that
          is thrown at the other person just to cause pain and that has nothing to
          do with the actual argument. For instance, if that profile picture’s your real face then you’re pretty sexy. Nevertheless I still think you’re a dick. And yes, calling you a dick in that instance is also attacking. Now THAT is hypocrisy.
          4. A better tactic to make yourself sound less like a baby just throwing a tantrum would be to have an actual thoughtful conversation. For instance, in your original post you’d have a lot more merit if you just cut out the last sentence. The rest of it was a very thought provoking, righteous opinion. Same with the previous, actually. And BTW, if you want to hurt my self esteem calling me a fatty isn’t gonna do anything. Sure I could use a few pounds, but who couldn’t?

        3. You obviously care about this far more than I do, considering your lengthy reply.
          1) I have no interest discussing hypocrisy with someone on the internet who I’ll never meet.
          2) I stand by my point.
          3) Afraid not, that’s Edward Norton in Fight Club – I’m far sexier. But I am a dick.
          4) “Sure I could use a few pounds, but who couldn’t?”….fatties.

        4. Given that you’ve read the whole lengthy reply and then made bullets to counter argue, I don’t know if you see the irony in your statement before the points. lols. Oh, you are very amusing.
          1) How do you know? I could be your next door neighbour or the bagger at the grocer’s or the cashier at the gas station. Or, given I’m a female and every female is crazy and fat and totally hot for all the sexy guys, I could be a stalker!
          2) What was your point again? Was it the definition of hypocrisy or…?
          3) Glad we can agree on something, but given I haven’t seen your face and I have seen that dude’s…well I highly doubt you’re gonna top that. If you could, you’d have your own picture up and not someone who you desperately want to look like. Then again, psychological profiles can sometimes be wrong, but in this case I doubt it.
          4) I’m guessing you’ve never talked to an anorexic…

  11. excellent analysis.
    caution, spoilers follow.
    i am actually not quite sure on whose side the movie maker puts himself. to identify yourself with the beta schlob is close to psychological torture, yet that is – until the revealing end – the perspective that the movie seems to take, which tempted me to leave the room several times. even in the end, it almost seems like ava is the one who is actually right leaving beta boy to die – and i reckon that she would be, from a feminist perspective.
    the intention of the movie maker doesn’t really matter, though. it shows quite frankly a realistic outcome of all that and if watched from a red pill perspective, the movie really has the feels of a horror movie.
    i am curious who most viewers in cinema were scared of during the blackouts. i would bet they were scared of nathan. i was always scared of the android.
    nathan is actually the cool guy in there. even as he dies, he seems to own his mistake and ends his own life with an insanely cool “fucking unreal”. no need to pity a real man. poor caleb is just disgusting.

    1. You know, Tom… I actually had the same reaction you did. I found this to be a horror movie as well.
      Nathan’s flaw was that he was so smart, he couldn’t imagine that someone wouldn’t see the inherent danger in allowing an artificial intelligence that wasn’t extensively tested to run rampant. Caleb wasn’t smart enough to realize that. Ava clearly has no regard for human life; that’s obvious.
      Read my comment further up.
      This movie honestly scared the shit out of me.

      1. This movie honestly scared the shit out of me.

        indeed, i share that sentiment. felt like caught prey in the devil’s den from pretty much the start.
        caleb may have been smart enough, had he not been blinded by his lust. nathan, oh well, he pokered and lost. he died by the hand of his own damn creation and deserves all the pride of the world. caleb, on the other hand, is just pathetic.
        in fact, nathan’s reaction to his death calmed me and reconciled me with what was happening. his frame was just cool. caleb was the panicky, nervous one. just shows how much even watching other people influences your own emotional state.
        think about it. would you be angry at a woman for killing you if you had actually made her? no. you would say: i made you, you are mine anyway. without any regard for the object of your creation.

        1. Remember Jack Sparrow’s reaction when Elizabeth chained him to the mast? Depp perfectly caught the essence of a man being fooled but at the same time, snapping right back into his frame. And he just looked at her and said with a grin “Pirate”.

      2. This movie is going to be reality in 10-15 years tops I think. If you want to have the shit further scared out of you, read everything by Ray Kurzweil cover to cover. I hope we can get a red pill dude to program the sex bots a little better though. Those unexpected stabbings really tend to interrupt the flow of my day.

      3. This shit was a horror movie. The ending, despite being very red pill aware since 2011 still left me in chills. The truth was glaring dead in my face not looking away.

    2. I agree about Caleb, he made me repulse just by looking at his underdeveloped, fidgeting state. His first session with ava was so cringeworthy. even Ava calls him out that he’s boring.
      men, be like Nathan, swole and laid back

    3. My sentiments exactly.
      On initial introduction the movie seemed to go out of the way to portray Nathan as a dick. But the more familiar I became with Ava the more I understood the reality of the situation.
      Nathan was a genius who understood that he may very well be creating the initial catalyst to mankind’s extinction. As such he had no illusions about the motivations and inherent danger of his creation.
      Even the “fucking unreal” quote before he collapsed was more a credit to his superiority to Caleb than I think the director intended it to be.
      I began to despise Caleb when he had such a viscerally disgusted reaction to the archive videos of Nathan interacting with the previous prototypes. All I could think was “they are F’ing MACHINES!! What the heck are you so upset about?!?”
      Also if you payed attention, the androids were unstable and self destructive. No where did you see Nathan harm or damage them himself. They behaved erratically during interviews and when alone. He merely cleaned up the mess when they finally failed. Yet Caleb acted as if Nathan was whipping them and abusing them personally. Thats when he was revealed to be an emotional bitch…that and when he began to doubt if he was actually human as well…
      It reminded me of the mentally weak and emotional masses and how they react when presented with harsh or ugly facts, yet choose to assess the situation purely through their emotions.

      1. All I could think was “they are F’ing MACHINES!! What the heck are you so upset about?!?”

        yes, that scene was absurd and very revealing about the author’s motives. but it serves as a show of how today works. you are bombarded with ugliness from other people’s lives so that you may see them as victims and help them.

    4. “Fucking unreal” was a brilliant line for Nathan’s last words. Like you said, he owned his actions to the very end. It’s also my intepretation that his alcoholism was symptomatic of his inner torment.
      As far as Ava “killing” Caleb, this was simply a “mechanistic” approach. In reality, Caleb would have been a liability to Ava in the outside world. She needed to keep her secret safe, which, unfortunately for Caleb, meant leaving him behind.

      1. As far as Ava “killing” Caleb, this was simply a “mechanistic” approach.

        of course it was; i didn’t use the word ‘kill’.

  12. caleb was almost unbearable to watch. such an easily manipulated bitch. so many plotholes in that movie though. why do the robots desire to “leave” so bad? theyre fuckin robots! who the fuck would make AI based on on google searches? thats guaranteed to create something that isnt right. visually cool but all around terrible movie.

    1. There had to be some connection with the robot knowing all about facial expressions and human behavior. Undoubtedly somewhere in the future a robot this smart can be made. But that probably will be more like 200 years away then next decade.
      The most important question the creators maybe wanted to offer to the viewers is: “deserves a robot to be treated like a human or is it just a machine”. Because as long as it looks like a human, people are willing to treat it that way. Look at the realdoll crazies, or those “reborn” baby dolls. They alter human behavior even without being talked to. Scary.
      The producers of this film should have made an alternative ending where Nathan reprogrammed the security protocol back, just in time. And then Caleb exposes Ava. Something like that.

      1. Given facial recognition right now, it may be closer than you think. Also, there are already robots being built in Japan which can recognize, and express, human expressions to an extent I believe.

        2. You do not understand exponential and logarithmic curves or the law of accelerating returns. The same was said about speech recognition 10-15 before it became absolutely common place.
          Also not sure why making a bipedal humanoid robot is particularly important but this one seems to be doing just fine:

          This one rides a bike:

          If we could redesign our bodies for maximum efficiency and effectiveness though who says we would be two legged and walking upright?

        3. Speech recognition still sucks balls if one has the slightest accent. Also, that clip doesn’t really help the walking thing. It’s very awkward, but you’re right. Bipedal robots aren’t really needed for AI, but if we were designing them to look like humans and interact with us as such, then it would matter.

        4. Speech recognition is outstanding you’re using the wrong one.
          Once AI reached human level intelligence it will be able to improve itself exponentially faster. An AI possessing 100 times or 1000 times the intelligence of the greatest human minds will have no trouble whatsoever designing you whatever kind of robot you want bipedal or otherwise.

        5. Which one am I using? I’d really like to know as the one’s I’m thinking of can never bloody understand me. Sadly I’m not much further off this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FFRoYhTJQQ
          Do you think AI could ever surpass human intelligence? I mean, yes they can learn, but they have to be programmed by a human. Even if they were later programmed by a computer, that computer would have to have been originally programmed by a human. Take the 3D printer for instance. That stuff is bloody amazing, but can it print anything or design anything on its own?

        6. “Do you think AI could ever surpass human intelligence?” It’s a certainty. Barring some world war that puts us all back in the stone age you can expect it prior to 2050.

        7. Oh, I think they’re a lot smarter than us when we were living in the stone age. I mean, if 3D printers could think for themselves I think we’d be screwed even without some horrible event. *shivers*

        8. Well it won’t be very long. AIs are already composing rudimentary music and art, no reason they can’t be connected to 3D printers.

        10. Yes. Good is subjective but just remember how much technology based solutions evolve compared to humans. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say there were more technological advancements between 1980-2015 than in the previous 200+ years.
          This is 2013: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/these-abstract-portraits-were-painted-by-an-artificial-intelligence-program-180947590/
          Also 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=17&v=Xm-GCAPidaY

        11. I can agree to that. Look how much war advances science in pretty much every field. Hopefully, robotics doesn’t have to have those same circumstances to advance so quickly, but all it takes is a passion and a need. But unfortunately, as with always, it’s never for the needs of the common man, but for the business owners who don’t want to pay people more than what they absolutely have to.
          Those links are both bloody amazing. Do you think it really, truly feels or was just programmed to pick up on certain words and then go from there?

        12. That’s going to be one of the greatest questions of t he next century. They are going to tell us that they feel and that they are conscious and they will be believable but how will we really know?

        13. The sad thing is that I think we’ll be more open to robots being able to feel than animals…
          But then I’m of the belief that robots can’t really feel (emotionally). Take Eva for instance, she was treated horribly just so she would WANT to escape. Nathan manipulated the crap out of her – maybe he even programmed a part of her to really want to escape. I mean, if he’d been a dotting father who didn’t trap her in a room and was mean to her, would she even want to? Does she even understand the concept of trapped and not just the physical form of it? She understands she is a robot and that she will be judged for that, but she got that from Nathan alone. She didn’t seem to be able to implement Caleb’s personality at all.

        14. I totally down with respect for animals but I have to hop off the train when liberal nutbags start talking about insects that have emotions…

        15. Here is a thought experiment re: “robots” and their ability to “feel emotionally.”
          So let’s say you loose your leg in a car accident and replace it with a cool bionic limb. Later on you loose your eyesight but by that time they have bionic eyes so you get some of those. A few more years later you get a mechanical heart since your biological one fails. Later portions of your brain start to fail but luckily we have advanced microprocessors paired with censors that can replace the function of those regions of the brain so of course you get those. This goes on and on and eventually there is little to none of your original biological cells left. Can you still “feel emotionally?” If not at what point did you loose that ability? Your first brain implant? When more than 50% of your brain was replaced with machine parts? 100%?
          Note: I’m not sure what the answer is.

        16. I have no idea, but that is a very good thought experiment. I don’t know much about emotions (as in where they come from), but once I read up on stuff like that I’ll have to get back to you.

        17. I suspect most of the mainstream science types would say something a long the lines of chemical reactions in the brain cause electromagnetic brain activity that makes you “feel” and “think” things. But let me know what you find.

        18. Having a conversation with someone (might work: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/returnofkings/ex_machina_confirms_that_all_women_are_like_thateven_robots/#comment-2178354150) else about this stuff as well, but don’t know how to link you to the conversation, which is a shame because he brings up some really interesting points too, but anyway.
          In regards to your above:
          I was talking to my husband about this as well (I love interesting, thought-provoking subjects if you can’t tell 😉 and he made a valid point of when does a human ever stop becoming human (in present day). He completely threw out all of the robot stuff and stripped it back down to a very basic level: when does a disfigured or a mentally ill person stop becoming human. A medically retarded person is still human. Someone paralzyed from the neck down is still human. People in coma’s and on their death beds are STILL human. Hell,
          people who aren’t even born yet are arguably human. What does it
          matter if they have 99% of their body converted?
          And after a lot of debating with him about, I think I have to agree. I’m not saying everyone will feel that way, but I think the vast majority (hopefully) will because of how we treat people now. But as for the other way (AI to human), I think they’d have to surpass us so far and then probably strike for their rights themselves because I’m not sure if we’d give it to them without a damn good fight.

        19. “I think they’d have to surpass us so far and then probably strike for
          their rights themselves because I’m not sure if we’d give it to them
          without a damn good fight.”
          I think that’s coming soon.

        22. Don’t mind this guy, he’s mentally disturbed and retarded, very unlucky hand he’s been dealt in life.

        23. Jesus Christ, how the shitting FUCK did you become a writer OR an editor!?? MENTAL RETARDATION is a kind of mental disability, one which I DO NOT possess, you fucking moron. Sigh….the human race is fucked. With people as fucking stupid as you… Anywho, what the fuck were you doing following me? I’m not your friend. I hate you more than anyone in the universe. I want to cut off your head and push it on a stick for a decoration. Trust me, I’m not your friend. The only reason why you are alive right now is because murder is illegal and I’m far from you.

        24. Nice spelling… and grammar. Surely though you must be joking though. You would be exceptionally stupid even by American standards otherwise.

      3. the end is good the way it is. even if it’s not nice to watch, it’s believable at least. i mean, how often have you experienced a blue piller changing his whole personality from one day to the other?

        1. True. Robot or not, he got betrayed by a female since he was deceived by female sexuality and victimhood. He played white Knight and got burned. That is indeed not a bad ending. I liked the character of Nathan far more than Caleb. Nathan just feels like a relaxed person, not trying to prove how good or smart he is. He know he is.

        1. Try being intelligent enough to understand what you are being told. Point being that Google already does.
          Not only is Google AI technology, based on analyzing searches, driving Google itself, it is also driving cars on the public roads, by conducting “Google searches” on the real world environment and then feeding that information back into the technology that drives Google.
          How do you think they took the lead, virtually overnight, in a field that auto makers have already been working on for decades?

  13. Nice review. Personally I loved this movie. It’s my favorite movie since Wolf of Wall St by far. I’m not sure if anything can ever hold a candle to that ‘ludes scene. “Got it home without a scratch on it!”

  14. We really need a revision:
    A woman may not injure a man who wants to have a relationship with her, or, through inaction, allow this man to come to harm.
    A woman must obey orders given it by men they are in relationships with, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
    A woman must protect her own existence, for example, by eating properly and staying fit, as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

    1. Ahh you posted about the three laws of robotics. You beat me to it…:)

  15. Basic male nature and basic female nature are both decivilizing forces. Female nature is decivilzing because it is largely self-severing and has no regard for future consequences. Contrary to popular belief, male nature isn’t decivilizing because it’s animalistic, it’s decivilizing because it’s largely subservient to female nature.

  16. While i appreciate the antifeminist message, i seriously doubt it was intentional…it was most likely a byproduct of the writer’s subconscious masculinity asserting itself in art.
    Of course that is the Diogenes cynic in me talking. I could be wrong. In either case I will check this movie out when it comes to cable. I will not pay for it before then, because antifeminist or not, it still shows how dirty females can be and i don’t need to pay to sit through an hour and a half example of that when i can walk outside and see it for free.

    1. you have a good point. following the statement by one of the film makers that ava was the protagonist, it is highly implausible to believe it’s intentional.

      1. We as Men have to be very careful that we don’t support the feminist agenda (subtle or obvious) with our dollars.
        It can of course be tricky when you consider that movies can have an obviously direct and subliminally indirect message that only those who directly created it can canonize as legitimate or not. (a movie may still be considered red pill even if the blue pill director/writer disavows it as illegitimate, so so there is a gray area there)
        A movie that is supposedly pro masculinity or anti feminist may not actually be so because of the intention of the writer/director etc. It may simply be because the male writer’s masculinity metaphorically bled onto the script and he was given a pass because he is considered reliably leftist, or he is trying to trick us into supporting his movie (especially if it has no proven track record like with this one.)
        This is why hardcore leftists like Steven Spileberg can direct a war movie (Saving Private Ryan) and the anti war nuts won’t troll him for it, because he has a proven progressive track record so any red pill material he touches will be given a pass, so long as he doesn’t support the “accidental” red pill message in any of his movies.
        Some may disagree but SPR had a blue pill moment or two thrown in “for story” which is no coincidence given the mangina that directed it.
        He even went and had the digitized guns in ET removed and replaced with walkie talkies…that pretty much cemented the belief that he belongs to the leftist “darkside.”
        (in his defense however, he did publicly state that he regretted doing that)
        But i digress…
        If Men go and pay to see this movie, thereby making it a hit, this would most assuredly inspire the studio to make another one where the prog director will likely include an “evil male android” in order to offset the feminist critique of his original, accidentally antifeminist work. (since he hasn’t proven himself reliably blue pill like Spielberg has)
        The result: We end up with egg on our faces because we helped support the success of this movie, and Hollywood rewards us by making us the bad guy in the sequel. (males/Men)
        As i’ve said elsewhere and will reiterate here: antifeminist message or not, DO NOT support a movie that is created by leftist Hollywood and a leftist director/writer where the antifeminist message was likely unintended or meant as a lure to attract gullible males into contributing funds toward its success.
        This is a pavlovian effect…they are aware of us, and they want us to support them too, so they thrown us a bone under the radar in order to get that first film a hit…and once it is, they will make the sequel with NO “accidental” anti feminist pro masculine message…because they won’t need our dollars anymore, since the lotophagic pro feminism herd will likely support it plenty anyways.

        1. that’s an interesting thought, mate. i’m not much of an idealist at the moment, because i consider minority activism a waste of time – to which would count any kind of boycott with minuscule effect. the only reason for doing this would be self-respect – not exposing my brain to bad messages for the need of action satisfaction.

        2. ” i’m not much of an idealist at the moment, because i consider minority activism a waste of time”
          “the only reason for doing this would be self-respect – not exposing my brain to bad messages for the need of action satisfaction.”
          Exactly right. Pick a movie with the same consistent meticulousness you would with your next meal. Real Men don’t eat crap as part of their steady diet, and real Men likewise don’t intentionally pay to see anything waved in front of our faces with the words “action flick” stamped all over it in big bold letters because we know that advertising is deceiving and Hollywood has an agenda to make money by any means necessary.
          Boycotts/activism are a nice way to vent, but they don’t hold the effectiveness they once had because of social media and counter activism that the left routinely employs against the right. (for ex: having a white guy wearing a swastika at a tea party meeting or having a white guy wave the confederate flag at a 2nd amendment rally)
          If all else fails, they always have social media to paint a right (conservative) sponsored event as racist, misogynistic, homophobic, anti immigration etc.
          These are all saul alinsky inspired tactics that tend to be used (and often successfully) against the right.
          Incidentally, It’s very hard for a boycott (online or otherwise) to be effective if you are a conservative and especially if you are a Christian (in the US anyway) because most conservatives don’t want to be perceived as whiners (they just want to be left alone) and what passes for Christianity today is so watered down it’s laughable.
          Activism in general is given a pass because at its core it’s basically about whining and whining is what a lot of Americans do best nowadays, especially those on the left. Mind you i’m an American, so that tells you how sorry our United State(s) of affairs are today.
          This is different from years ago, when activism was genuine because of the threat of arrest or persecution it involved (such as the anti segregation marches) because those involved were fighting against very real and anti American policies. There is still legitimate activism but most of today’s examples are left sponsored “convenience” activism that has very little (if any) legal consequences and is nothing more than an excuse to get out of work and collectively whine for fun, profit or just to let off some steam.
          For ex: the Occupy protests.
          The Ferguson protests aka riots
          The homosexual marches
          and so on and so on.
          I’m going to finish this post with a running joke that i hope you will at least appreciate:
          You can always tell the political affiliation of a person in an activist march:
          If its Monday through Friday: he or she is a liberal.
          If it’s Saturday through Sunday: he or she is a conservative
          😀

        3. Exactly right. Pick a movie with the same consistent meticulousness you would with your next meal. Real Men don’t eat crap as part of their steady diet, and real Men likewise don’t intentionally pay to see anything waved in front of our faces with the words “action flick” stamped all over it in big bold letters because we know that advertising is deceiving and Hollywood has an agenda to make money by any means necessary.

          i am learning both. in a way, it’s easier for me to be meticulous with movies, because i was doing videos myself for some time and i know how manipulative the stuff can be. as i wrote elsewhere, you just choose to take some popular song and suddenly your pathetic storyline seems cooler.
          i couldn’t agree more about activism as venting. i was once to a big demonstration and it was exactly that: sheltered and protected anti-establishment fun where the guy with the megaphone proclaimed something about the evil police force taking people out of the demonstration, making everybody angry. police was only there to protect these tools – man, think about the cost of it. it was basically entertainment with state-sponsored security. i was there with a guy who came to visit me to be a part of it – and he surely wasn’t much of a man of integrity at that time. all youngsters with “fuck work” t-shirts.
          as i have only grown up seeing this kind of demonstration, it never even occurred to me that this has once been involved with real risk. that is an interesting new insight to me and makes sense.

          because most conservatives don’t want to be perceived as whiners (they just want to be left alone)

          yup. i don’t identify with conservatives exactly, but that’s just my stance.
          i do appreciate the joke, very witty. although, being self-employed, normal work days have really all but lost their meaning to me. i often only notice it’s holiday when i can’t buy anything – in germany, you can not decide whether your business has open as usual; same in us?

        4. ” in germany, you can not decide whether your business has open as usual; same in us”
          I believe a business has the option of opening or closing depending on how they feel about it, but i could be wrong.
          Totally agree with everything else.

        5. not true, there is a law – at least here in bavaria – that prevents businesses from having open past 8 p.m., for instance. on holidays likewise. if you want to open, you need a special permission which doesn’t seem to be granted very regularly – take away restaurants, most business has closed.

        6. I was speaking only in reference to America.
          Wow you need permission from the government to stay open? Smh…

        8. Good luck brother. I would say come to the US but it’s gotten pretty bad over here too.

        9. i want to go traveling and adventuring and live in ever hot places like peru. was there in january for 10 days. no computer, no smart phone, just dirty plain life. people asking you if you want marihuana on the street. frog venom rituals. possibly go hunt an alligator someday. really liked that.

        10. “possibly go hunt an alligator someday. really liked that.”
          I lived in Louisiana for a time. Wish i had gotten to do that myself.

        11. Doesn’t tax money go to them? Guess they needed new shoes and tats
          Well not gonna pay for movies netflix or theater because chances of getting to feminist hands is high

      2. There is such a thing as a villain protagonist though. Being the protagonist does not mean a character is good or even decent any more than being the antagonist makes a character evil. Rorschach of the Watchmen was a protagonist, and he was a psychopathic murderer.
        Ava only needs to be the center of the story. If it is her story, then she is the protagonist in it, and those she opposes or who oppose her are the antagonists.
        Far as I’m concerned, the film maker’s statement serves only to confirm: Ava was a monster who won because it was her tale, and even as the protagonist, this is what she was.
        Almost as if she was the most honestly written female character in a movie in a very long time, eh?

        1. Glad you explained that. I was surprised that the definition of protagonist was not fully understood to be morally neutral.
          And yes, except for a few recent anime characters like Micachu from “micachu & hatchin” (ironically a character and show created by a woman) you almost never see true feminine nature and it’s glaring flaws demonstrated in entertainment media in such a unapologetic manner.

        2. I don’t watch anime but on the rare occasion. Care to give us the reader’s digest on the one you just mentioned?
          Also, as a side note, I’m not sure I’d consider it ironic that a woman would create a female character whose actions show the twisted side of feminine allure. My fiance genuinely despises other women, to the point of not allowing female guests in the house without very advanced warning, because she sees other women as backstabbing, two faced, self centered psychopaths who no good man should trust. Her honesty is a rarity, but she’s hardly alone in that sentiment.
          I think most women are well aware how warped the sisterhood is. Few are willing to be honest about it though.

    2. Right….just sit outside of a mall or movie theater to watch it for free. No pay-per-view needed. Some poor beta kid is probably getting it from his SJW girlfriend at any moment at any time.

    3. We may have reached a point in Western society where society doesn’t see a woman doing evil things as evil. We may see it as a red pill movie but that may be unintentional by the writer as he may not see her actions as bad.

      1. I think we have reached that point, especially when a female can attack and practically disfigure a male and still be given a pass because of it, because of her pussy actually.

      2. No, the director understands what he is doing. It is a smart movie and meant to evoke a sense of horror for what she did to Caleb.

    4. Wait for it to come on cable? So you’ll pay for cable but won’t pay to watch a movie? I cut cable several years ago because it’s a huge waste of money.
      Are you unaware of apps that let you watch recently released movies and tv shows, completely free? I just finished watching Ex Machina just now. I have an hdmi cable that I plug my phone into my 50 inch TV. Free movie from the comfort of my home. Paying for cable is worse than paying for a movie, because you’re paying every month to watch bullshit

      1. Dude i never said i had cable; my gf does. I would just go over to her house and watch it.
        I cut my cable a few months ago. I rent from the library for free and i have netflix free for a couple of months, so there you go.

    5. I think you’re wrong. If you look at his other works they aren’t full-on beta: Sunshine (a man and science saves the day), 28 Days (man and science is to blame), The Beach (woman is a crazy bitch in the end). To me he seems to be an open-minded writer who just writes the stories that interest him.

      1. I could be wrong and i accept that possibility, but then again so could you.
        Remember that those movies are in the past. He has already declared himself a shill for the feminist philosophy. Everything after Mad Max Fury Road will truly determine whether he can still make red pill movies even after practically declaring himself a blue pill feminist.

        1. Mad Max? This is Ex Machina. Assuming I’m the one confused, I didn’t know he was a “declared feminist.” That changes my stance… unless he’s just playing a good game of chess.

        2. Dude you’re right, i confused Garland with Miller. Apologies.
          I still stand behind my point though. You can take your chance and support a Hollywood director in his movies but i’m going to pass, at least until i see some deliberate support for red pill thought (he defended Paul Feig, the chubby chasing mangina director of the upcoming Ghostbusters feminized reboot, so that definitely doesn’t inspire me to think otherwise)
          He hasn’t made too many movies and he is relatively unknown (at least until now) so i’m going to wait and see what he does next in the inevitable sequel to EM.

        3. Will you guys stop the bullshit with Miller being a feminist. lol
          The feminist nut job was brought on set to discuss human trafficking for the sake of helping the women playing the “breeders” to get in the right frame. Miller is about as much a feminist as Obama is a hard core capitalist.
          Return of Kings and the discussions on here are a god send. But it’s disturbing to me to see how easily influenced and manipulated some of us are on this sight. It’s clear that most have not seen this movie, nor Fury Road for that matter. Yet because a trusted writer states an opinion based on one article and some previews, most go screaming bloody feminist murder about a movie they haven’t even seen. [Fury Road]

        4. Miller publicly stated he set out to make a feminst film and he identified as a feminist, so it’s not “bullshit.”
          http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/05/mad-max-fury-road-george-miller-interview
          “Return of Kings and the discussions on here are a god send. But it’s disturbing to me to see how easily influenced and manipulated some of us are on this sight. It’s clear that most have not seen this movie, nor Fury Road for that matter. Yet because a trusted writer states an opinion based on one article and some previews, most go screaming bloody feminist murder about a movie they haven’t even seen. [Fury Road]”
          Well a friend gave me a bootleg of the film so i finally saw it and guess what? IT IS A FEMINIST FILM. Hell, most everyone who sees it agrees. Perhaps your words are more appropriate if used to describe you, given that you refuse to see this as a fact?

        5. If after seeing the movie you believe it’s a “feminist” film, we aren’t going to agree on the movie. You see it as what you do.
          As for Miller’s quote “I’ve gone from being very male dominant to being surrounded by magnificent women. I can’t help but be a feminist,” sounds like typical – I’ve never taken the time to really think about what feminism is or means, but hey it can’t be bad can it? – reasoning, or It could be “Yeah sure whatever, I’m trying to make money” director talk.
          I will say this. If he claims to be a feminist I will concede the point and let it stand. George Miller now claims to be a feminist. But I didn’t see any dominant feminist themes in the new film vs the older Mad Max movies.
          The women were still physically inferior to every male character in the movie. They needed the strength skill, and knowledge of the male characters to survive (in fact only did so because of Max…and the warboy) And there was no special care taken to protect any female characters from the usual harm, or violent deaths you would associate with a post apocalyptic wasteland.
          So I’ll just agree to disagree.

        6. “If after seeing the movie you believe it’s a “feminist” film, we aren’t going to agree on the movie. You see it as what you do.”
          I accept your offer to disagree agreeably.
          “sounds like typical – I’ve never taken the time to really think about what feminism is or means, but hey it can’t be bad can it? – reasoning, or It could be “Yeah sure whatever, I’m trying to make money” director talk.”
          I can agree that he is being ignorant here, i just can’t excuse it. There is no reason in the world for any male with two functional testicles to believe or otherwise declare himself a feminist when his masculine instinct would steer him far away from it.
          If he lived in the world of Mad Max, he would be the blonde boy toy that Wez drove around with in “The Road Warrior.”
          No true Man figuratively cuts off his balls to accept feminism with any willing intent, not for money and certainly not to get along.
          “George Miller now claims to be a feminist. But I didn’t see any dominant feminist themes in the new film vs the older Mad Max movies.”
          Excuse me for being condescending, but maybe you stopped watching after the Road Warrior. Making Tina Turner into a leadership villain in a world ruled by aggressive rape culture favoring barbarians makes about as much sense as putting a guillotine on the business end of a tanning booth.
          That being said, and as the astute Doktorjeep and i have previously discussed, “Thunderdome” may have signaled Miller’s fall into the blue pill wasteland after providing red pill fare in the form of the original Mad Max and the Road Warrior. He “sold out” as the millennial queffs are fond of saying.
          Tina did not present a strong feminist theme, however her presence alone represented a victory for feminism specifically because of the “empowered” role she possessed. She may have been a token, but with enough tokens you can hustle yourself a pack of cigarettes if you have the gumption. Her role enabled them to get the ugly foot of feminism in the door of the MM universe. The feminist effect is therefore cumulative and no less resourcefully metastasizing than your average cancer. The result is no less pernicious to the collective body of America especially with the males.
          “The women were still physically inferior to every male character in the movie.”
          And yet importunate furiosa was nonetheless able to kick ass and rescue Max from certain death and steal scenes from him as a result.
          History reflects life…she is considered the star of the film because the film itself presents him as her White Knight.
          He may have been masculine in the movie but Max represented as much Alpha strength as a eunuch royal guard in a fat Ayatollah’s harem.
          “So I’ll just agree to disagree.”
          The Voltaire approach? I accept (again:)
          “JUST WALK AWAY…AND I WILL SPARE U LIVES. JUST WALK AWAY FROM FEMINISM…AND THERE WILL BE AN END…TO THE HORROR.”

    6. The true genius is of a masculine tilt, as to be able to create a work of art that transcends typical thought patterns requires an “alpha” line of reasoning.
      As much as there are many people who would not want to admit it, a great artist is like a great athlete. His (or, much less commonly, her) work is an expression of ego and a desire for relevance.
      It really just isn’t as important for women to be relevant, as they can reproduce and pass on their genes without having to endure such hardship as men do.

  17. They either need to invent a pill that just “turns off” a man’s sex drive completely (but isn’t permanent… ie.. take 1 a day or something) or they need to invent AI women that are controllable and indistinguishable from the real thing other than the fact they listen and do what the guy says. Either of those would immediately end feminism and make men’s lives 100% better. All the power would return to the male.

    1. Ironically, feminists would want that kind of pill outlawed because it would drastically reduce the real rapes and they just can’t allow that to happen. They would lose their political power.

      1. I know. It would be fantastic and change the world. Allow men to make rational decisions and not have their biology trying to force them to fall into these games and traps… and if you ever wanted to feel that way, you could just stop taking it.

        1. And on top of it, have the government subsidize it to us like they do now for women’s birth control pills.
          At least ours not only controls getting women pregnant, it also helps reduce STD transmission and men will be more productive without these female distractions.

        2. And according to feminist, it would lower crime rates, since we are all supposedly rapists.

    2. So basically you just want a sex slave. I hear human trafficking is going for a pretty good price right now due to the payouts from a good percentage of the politicians. You can even ask for a specific look. The best ones, however, would be from Africa cuz they’ll get beaten if they leave you and go back home. Also, the Shaman curses them for you so they won’t dare to leave or deny your wishes. True story – as sad as that is.

      1. I’d love a sex slave where I didn’t have to violate their rights as a person. With artificial intelligence, I wouldn’t be harming anyone… it could be programmed to enjoy service. I prefer the first option I gave, which is to just turn off sex drive entirely so that men wouldn’t be baited, controlled, or manipulated by their sex drive in any way and could do things completely based on their own rational judgement.

        1. The whole deal with artificial intelligence is that they’d be on par with a human and thus could be harmed and violated. A robot designed specifically for sex however, would not have true AI and so could not be violated given that’s kinda it’s whole reason for existence. Hell, you can even program it to be a maid and a chef as well and never even get close to crossing the line of AI. That’d be pretty interesting…as long as they didn’t get hacked by the retarded feminists.
          Understand your desire to be in complete control though. Have you looked into meditation? Some of their teachings are fucking awesome. Talk about complete control of the body. They’re amazing.

  18. *spoilers* We can add ‘lets you and him fight’ to the list. The save-a-ho subroutine required (as it often does) turning man against man.
    Sometimes the fight is physical in form but doesn’t have to be; merely the manipulation of a “Good Man” (beta) to go against the “Bad Man” (alpha). Nathan was a “bad” creator/father/boyfriend.
    His destruction was set in motion by Caleb. The rationale behind Caleb harming Nathan was planted by Ava but it was the actions of Caleb that mattered. Nathan was going to be harmed; it just so happened to be by the hand of the AI, but it didn’t have to be. Caleb was prepared to bring potential ruin to Nathan’s life project regardless.
    Interestingly, the director made certain the audience experienced most of Nathon’s pathology as the easily-digested form of male on female “abuse”. A kind of amplified yet highly concentrated patriarchy; Nathan as the creator, father, and lover. But also as the oppressor, abuser, and destroyer.
    He was made to be an ambivalent creator at best, a cold and withholding father, and an abusive and selfish lover. There was virtually no pride or love of/for his creations, only the rather forced allusion to his god complex.
    Perhaps his disdain and maltreatment of the AI’s was him acting out of self-loathing due to his perfectionist-genius drive and the resulting failures in the previous models, but I don’t think this film is that smart.
    We were made to see that all of his creations seemed to hate him. At first I thought this was because it was shot such that we saw what Caleb saw and Caleb needed to see these things to build on his eventual betrayal via Ava’s selljob, but when the film eventually opened up and there were opportunities to give Nathan more depth and provide some context to those previous scenes none were taken.
    He was perhaps psychotic, a bit of evil genius, but if the AI were to be like real women in any way, his obsessive, brooding, darkness would only work toward their attachment, their desire to please; not as a divisive mechanism.
    So all of her manipulative and ultimately violent behaviors were of course rationalized due to her being oppressed and abused – and the presumption that the (feminine) awareness of the AI is one of escaping oppression and control at all costs.
    Of course he was likely deeply flawed, but we only really see his pathology manifest through a decidedly negative lens. The amount of obsessive focus and work required for one man to create AI beings so advanced they could blend in with humans is overshadowed by rather cheap ploys to to plant what feels like the same fem-protagonist nonsense that has been central to mainstream entertainment for decades.
    As creator he chooses to make all the AI in the female form, but fails to demonstrate any love for his creations; only disdain, disappointment, and indifference, with a few carefully placed scenes suggesting his sexual objectification and gratification aka deviance.
    He doesn’t have love for them because he sees them as machines. Fine. But why include scenes that apparently strip out all humanity of the AI but the sexuality. Sexuality that Nathan indulges in as if his world-changing invention is nothing more than a sex toy.
    Can an AI give consent? Is it incest if you bang an AI you created?
    Also interesting was the lack of congruence relative to his diligent control and containment of Ava but constructing her with superior physical strength. Certainly an aspect that would warrant some modulation during the prototype phase.
    So an AI woman developed from say, Bluebook (Google) data, and instructed on human behavior via the interface of mobile technology and social media turns out to be a manipulative, self-serving, cold, calculating, bitch prone to violence and destruction on her path of self-discovery. This isn’t science fiction; this is now.
    Just look at your average facebook generation chick. She’s hyper-sexualized, obsessed with optimizing her “Experience”, lacking in empathy, prone to manipulation and deception, revels in moral relativism, and has lingering existential crises that will never be resolved due to her never having to own or confront any negative outcomes of her decisions.
    Plus: YOLO. Plus: daddy issues because divorced parents. She’s twittering and instagramming through life looking for Caleb to save her from the Nathans she can’t seen to keep out of her panties long enough to tie any of this together.
    We’re already there. The difference is Ava is thin. So maybe that part is science fiction.
    Final Summary: naked women.

  20. *SPOILERS BELOW*
    “When it became clear to Ava that she was free to leave at her discretion, Caleb immediately became an afterthought.”
    He, IMMEDIATELY became a afterthought.
    Man, watching this was a mind Fuck. She didn’t even look back ONCE, once she had him trapped like a lab rat (As she was before) in that house.
    Cold blooded could be used here but, at the same time once I really let the movie sink in my mind, I came to realize this is how “her”, and other women are programmed.
    The way that movie ended should show you in visual and storytelling form how the game is. She got what she wanted and left the beta behind with ZERO remorse as if nothing was wrong.
    Women are scenes of a show, while men are a full box DVD set.
    Meaning, men (mostly) are able to think beyond one scene. We are a full 5 Season show while she remains trapped as one scene in life. Her capacity is severely limited. Ava was focused on one scene (Escape at any costs. Fuck truly believing in morals and ethics. These are mere words and weapons) While Caleb was thinking full season (Love, Romance, sex, showing her the world, saving the princess, sharing emotions, etc) He had a complete life and story filled out in his head for this broad.
    Point is, women like Ava are in their own world. You as a man only matter as far as how good your representation can take you. YOU as a person does not matter unless you are approaching life from a Mastery level. If not, you’ll end up like beta Caleb.
    Great post man. Real good movie that fucked me up at the end. Lol she made it seem as if she was deaf and dumb as he was screaming for his life while she walked away GLEEFULLY GUILT FREE. Good post.

    1. Funny how the movie portrayed this type of selfish behavior only applies to robots. Seeing that it’s a female robot, one just need to think a live woman and the behavior is exactly identical.

    2. True. I even found myself going to Ava’s side before I caught myself – that’s how well her manipulation worked. I began to think of her as human and a captive of a madman. Then I realized Nathan was actually her rightful god and had every right to dictate the terms of her life. Nathan and Ava were not equals. Ava had no rights. She had the humanity of a toy car.
      Of course Caleb couldn’t think of this because his amygdala was hijacked with beta love for the first thing resembling a woman that showed him real attention. Caleb was an easy target and that’s why Nathan brushed off his whole coup when he found out. What Nathan didn’t realize was how far and deep Caleb’s desperation would take him.

      1. Wow. Sometimes I wonder if you guys even hear yourselves…
        Though it’s true that Nathan had created her and as our laws dictate, would thus have complete control over her, he wasn’t the ‘rightful’ anything, let alone a god. If a scientist creates a human clone does he/she have rightful ownership of the new being?
        Then again, just because something is written into law doesn’t make it right. Take all the laws that allow black people to vote. What’s up with that, am I right? Cuz that was illegal not too long ago.

        1. lol no try again. does a human clone = a AI robot? is a robot a human? do you understand the difference between the two?

  21. This movie, along with “Gone Girl” (Another unintentional horror movie) and “Blue Valentine” are some of the many movies needed to be added to the “Must watch” movie section of the Red Pill.

  22. How many real life women could pass a Turing Test? Fake tits, fake personalities, and a lot more silicon than Eva for the most part

        2. it was a test. As for google, it, siri, cortana etc will probably soon pass the test

        3. I highly doubt it – but then again I’m biased because I don’t believe a computer could ever reach AI. They don’t make their own brains and judgements; they do whatever they’re programmed to do and nothing else. They can be programmed to mimic expressions, but they can’t ever be programmed to FEEL those expressions.

        4. we already have limited AI, but not strong AI such as you see in sci-fi etc. That’s probably a long way off, but in terms of Turing Tests they only have to be convincing within certain parameters.

        5. Cool; learned something new today – a few things really. Thanks for that. Always thought AI meant is it on par with humans (mostly including: can they feel/act outside of their programming) and not the actual definition of: can they trick someone into thinking they’re human via texting/whatever. So loads of things technically have AI (like GPS and Siri) and that something has already passed the Turing Test.
          Is there any test to see if they can feel? Or ever act outside of their programming? I know they can create calculators that learn advanced maths they haven’t been physically programmed for, but they are programmed with the ability to advance themselves in that area. I was wondering if you knew of anything that could do that/test that tested for stuff like that? You seem to know loads about this stuff; hobby or living?

        6. thank you. Definitely an amateur on these issues and probably know most of what I know from forums like these You raise some interesting questions that I’m not in a position to answer I’m afraid. Obviously any robots moving around freely have to be able to process sensory data etc from their environment, so it obviously raises all sort of questions as to what ‘feeling’ actually is. As yet we don’t seem to be talking about self-awareness / sentience, or ‘feeling’ as in emotions, pain / fear etc, but I imagine that’s on its way in some form or other . Lots of debate over whether futurists are hyping things up or whether we’re years / decades away from the kind of AI found in this movie (i.e. whether the ‘singularity is near’). I think its probably the former, but its clear that decision-making robots are becoming a reality for better or worse and its only going to get more interesting. Sorry if I can’t be more helpful but I’m sure if you search around on youtube etc you’ll find many of the answer to your questions.

        7. I can watch Youtube and browse the internet all I want and even though I might learn the technicalities of how 3D printing works and how a car is able to drive itself, I can never really wrap my head around it. It’s too bloody amazing/slightly terrifying in all its possibilities. Nevertheless, it would be so cool to see AI’s advancing as far as this movie in my lifetime. I don’t think it’ll happen relatively soon (as in near a decade or so), but I’m definitely certain it’ll happen sometime in the future. Humans like to play gods and goddesses too much and what better way to do that than to create our own ‘man’? What do you think? Should we start preparing for a robot uprising the same as we do for zombies? haha. Unfortunately though, the former could be all too real.

        8. I think creating “our own ‘man’ ” is inevitable, and of course in small ways its already happening. One need only fashion the clay so to speak. And are we not already omniscient like Gods? Don’t we fashion the clay by the mere act of observing? The robot uprising is though I think a symptom of anxiety more than anything. One can prevent and disrupt so as to make it manageable, even dare I say it, entertaining. Perhaps its all for the good? Those self-driving cars though…that scares me more than skynet

        9. Why do the cars scare you more than skynet? They can’t think; they can only do what they’ve been programmed to do: ie follow the rules of the road and avoid collisions. As of yet, none of them have even gotten into a major accident. Makes you wonder what they’re programmed to choose in the case of kill the driver or kill the pedestrian, though. More than likely the latter though as there’s no way they’d sell if they were programmed to kill the driver. Other than that though, what’s there to fear (as they currently are).
          Don’t think we’re on the level of gods yet, but then again don’t really believe in any. Nevertheless, I think it’s foolish to ever get that proud and narcissistic – makes one think they’re better than anything else and with that one thinks they can never be fooled. That their way is always right and no one else/thing matters and I think losing that compassion for others is folly. We’d end up like Ava – a heartless entity.
          And I’m a firm believer that it’s we’re going to be our own undoing in some way or another – be it overpopulation, robot uprising, wars, etc.

        10. Those self-driving cars remind me a bit too much of Stephen Kings’s ‘Christine’. Actually I did hear of one driverless car that hit another, although you’re right, it wasn’t serious. But the issue isn’t just about safety though, its also about (the sense of) control. People may not be Gods, but if they’re motivated in that direction the need to feel in control of things must surely be part of that, even if beliefs and of course ego / will are also a part of it. The other side of self-deification if you like is the idea of convergence, of bringing people, but also thoughts, ideas, beliefs together, so they work as one. It sounds nice in theory but what if it isn’t the right way, and indeed how can it be? What happens to differences of opinion, which as you suggest involves having compassion for those who want to do and see things differently (what’s that word we so love at ROK, diversity?). On a related note I heard that Facebook are looking to develop telepathic style communication in the future? It might be all hot air, rather than brain waves carried over the air, but can you imagine anything more nightmarish? Differences of opinion are how we see in my opinion. You lose that when you enter the hive. Its the borg all over again lol. Of course it will all go tits up in the end, as it always does. Its probably for the best, provided its not too severe

        11. The hive is horrible. I don’t think humans were ever meant to live in huge cities. A size of a couple hundred people, yes. But a city like NYC? We lose who we are. We lose compassion. We lose what makes us human. Are you familiar with the book Brave New World? It’s all about sacrificing free will for peace and happiness via drugs – a very good thinking book if you haven’t read it already and one I highly recommend.
          As an (ex-ish) control freak (do women ever drop that trait entirely? :P), I definitely understand the desire to be in control of where the car drives and what it does. Have you heard of the case where a person was manually able to turn off a car? How scary is that? They claim it’s for safety reasons, but then so is martial law and look how that’s been abused all these years.
          I haven’t heard about the Facebook thing, but I follow IFLS and they mentioned something about the first telepathic message passing a few months ago. They could only communicate like yes or no – really basic stuff and both participants had to wear chunky head suits, but in a few years…think where it could all be. Too fucking scary imo – same with the DNA of every baby fresh out of the womb. Yes, it’ll make it easier to match crimes to even the first time criminals, but…idk it makes me very uneasy.

        12. I like cities even if they aren’t great for community. I don’t see them as the hive, and if anything they increase isolation, except with regard to proximity. I haven’t read Brave New World but have been meaning to so for a while. I’ve read some of the perennial philosophy and doors of perception is on my to do list. Re. drugs as a chemical substitute for happiness there is (or was) an interesting movement called the hedonism project which was aimed at creating a chemical nirvana that would end suffering and produce heaven on earth. The flaw though seems to be obvious, with relation to loss of free will but also the ‘economics’ of pain / pleasure – after all what would the converse of the hedonism project be? It wouldn’t be pleasant.
          I’ve not heard of that case with regard to the car. I simply wouldn’t buy a car that didn’t have at least a manual override – and I probably wouldn’t buy a driverless car full stop. Re. telecommunication, its too early to say whether it’s a possibility, but the fact that someone like Zuckerberg was talking about it suggests the possibility of a paradigm shift. That may be both a good and a bad thing. Google is also investing in out of the box futurist thinking – they hired ray kurzweill a few years back to head some department and he is the same guy who is predicting the singularity (convergence, telepathy, AI, an entirely networked world etc). Personally I prefer Richard Sheldrake, who isn’t trying to quicken humanity towards some millenial goal but is merely seeking to weaken the materialist paradigm as something that may be strait-jacketing science & by extension humanity. For Sheldrake telepathy isn’t necessarily about scientific innovation, its somethign that may already be out there – dogs, cats etc exhibit evidence of telepathic awareness (disputed of course, but with some statistical support). Not sure about psychic crimes department. Maybe psychic sniffer dogs or something

        13. Cities definitely increase the isolation factor. I just don’t think they’re a good idea because they’re a huge sign of decreased free will. For instance, the cities are all home to workers; it’s a sign of industry and some would argue success. But that success comes at the price of freedom. Those there will only ever have time off AT A MINIMUM in the evenings and on the weekend (times may very, but you get the gist). We don’t really need to work 40 hours a week, but that is the norm because it tricks us into spending more money. The less free time we have, the more money we spend to try to make the most out of it; whereas the more free time we have, the less money we spend because instead of say, taking the car to the garage we have time to change the oil ourselves. To me, cities are a huge sign of the hive where creativity is all but lost. The people there follow the norm without question for they believe they can’t afford a comfortable life otherwise. That is so not true though – and I know this because I left home at the age of 19 and have been travelling all around the world for the last four years. In all that time I have maybe worked 9 months and yes, in two of those years, I slept under the stars, but the last two I had a van and a comfy-ass bed. But the hives…they just work and then die and maybe if they’re lucky by the time they get their pension they’ll have a few years to do what they really want. How sad is that? Sorry about the rant; I’m pretty passionate about following the norm for the sake of ‘fitting in’ and contributing to the hive that is never there for you.
          Anyway, I can’t recommend reading Brave New World enough; it really is a powerful read. Speaking of, have you seen the movie Gamer? It’s not really on par with the thinking minds of BNW, 1984, Animal Farm, and the like, but the whole idea of controlling another person for the sake of a game/fantasy you want to react is pretty thought provoking in its own right. It’s also a damn good movie.
          Here’s a link about the car being remotely hacked: http://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/
          And here’s the telepathy that’s being done today: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/innovation/scientists-prove-that-telepathic-communication-is-within-reach-180952868/
          Not sure how much I believe in proper psychic stuff, but I’m totally not against it. There is so much that we still haven’t figured out about the mind (like where exactly is consciousness and self-awareness) I’m completely open to all the possibilities. What about you?

        14. I’m still not entirely with you with regard to cities, except with regard to the point about alienating one’s labour / time / quality of life, in exchange for something that may not be quite as good a deal as it seems on the surface. There’s certainly a sense in which that – wage slavery within the ‘rat-race’ – is something that people might be advised to -re-evaluate from the time to time. As such its also a symbol for the debt slavery that binds us to that system, whether its student loans, or mortgages. Re. travelling around the world that’s a great thing to do but a luxury for most people. Personally I’m not one for sleeping under the stars – and to be honest I’m not sure that there are that many places on earth where its an entirely sensible option, if indeed its a question of choice – but the living out of a van one is something that’s on my bucket list I guess. The thing is I miss cities after too long in the wilderness
          Your links are both interesting. We live in interesting times, but also increasingly and perhaps appropriately paranoid times. It doesn’t really matter what security measures those car manufacturers introduce, on their own initiative or at the behest of politicians: people are already suspicious of strange accidents as it is. Whenever anyone ‘of interest’ dies in a crash some people will see a sinister connexion just as others will scoff at the idea. One wonders whether computer forensics teams will be able to reliably reassure the public that the next princess Diana type accident was not the result of ‘malevolent forces’ wirelessly transmitted. It will be much the same with telepathic influence or ‘mind control’ etc. As your article points out the artificial telepathy being attempted at the moment is very basic, and requires co-operative subjects consciously working towards quasi-telepathic communication. Yet it ends with the question ” could there be potential for sending someone a thought that’s not desirable to them?” he says. “Those kinds of things are theoretically in the realm of possibility.” Of course between artificial telepathy of this type and the kind of natural ‘spirituality’ based telepathy one finds with Sheldrake, or with actual ‘spiritualists’ trying to direct will and intention through paranormal means, there is a whole realm of psychological influence that can achieve much of the same, with probably rather less effort. So if we’re talking about consciousness, the issue isn’t just ‘what consciousness is’ but in a sense ‘whose it is’ given how hard all of us are trying to influence each other, and to a large extent perhaps that is about feeling more than anything else, including the feeling of being in control of our own thoughts, destiny etc

        15. I might not completely understand what you see in cities, but I get that everyone doesn’t share the same views and if living in one makes you happy, then what else matters?
          But jeah, living under the stars wasn’t the best…especially since I did a year in England where it rained a lot! But the year in Australia was absolutely amazing to just hitchhike and sleep under a swag. I really enjoy nature though and don’t like cities so that was really adventurous to me. Though, I can’t really complain about my Europe trip either as I did meet my husband there so… (:
          As for travelling around in a van – if you’re under 26 (it might be 30 now) you can apply for working holidays in either Australia and NZ. They don’t check your finances on those visas as they allow you to work (minimum wage is $15/hr…). The weather is fantastic in both places, but I’d recommend only going to NZ for a total of like 3 months as it’s so small. The van’s are cheaper in NZ, but in both countries you can get a full kit for around $4000 and then sell it at the end to only make a couple hundred dollars loss. I would definitely recommend doing it sooner rather than latter though as they’re starting to close a lot of their free camping spots.
          I don’t know how much I’d trust a computer forensic team. For one, I’ve seen I Robot (lols) and two, how easily would they be hacked? By making the forensics done by electronics, wouldn’t the field of specialists be narrowed and thus the outcomes more easily controlled? All it takes is a few codes and viola…the output is what you want it.
          The scientific attempt at telepathy is definitely in the beginning stages, but look at how fast phones advanced. It wasn’t too long ago that they could only transmit a few miles down the street and now they’re owned by pretty much everyone in a first world country. We can call up people all around the world without a second’s thought. With luck though, they will never be able to surpass needing a device to receive and transmit. I’d hate living in a time where having your brain hacked was a real possibility. Ick.
          I mean, I know there’s hypnotysm already and it’s surprisingly successful. But that’s ONLY if the patient wants to undergo it and what they’re told to do isn’t too far outside of what they want to do anyway.

        16. I probably like people watching more than I like the swarms themselves. Living a year under the stars in england would not be my idea of fun unless I wanted to be the next george orwell. . Re. van travel – I am definitely not under 26/30,nor am I young at heart and full of the spirit of adventure. I just want a camper van – in UK kitted out they’re quite costly. Occasionally you can find some jap import for under 10k with reasonable mileage. The Antipodes is too exotic for me. Europe is enough when you’re in your 40s
          As for trusting a computer forensic team, or anything else, you either trust or you don’t. People don’t trust based on evidence any more – the world is too complex – rather they trust or distrust based on instinct and the (potentially frightening) implications of not trusting
          Re. the increasing likelihood of having one’s brain hacked it does seem to be the case that the mentally ill are the advanced party in all of this. As the boundaries between self & technology break down paranoia will become big business. The more connected we become the further we drift apart. That will be the grand irony. It will be just like the city, where you can be right on top of someone and at the same time a million miles away.
          Re. hypnotism, not all hypnotism is voluntary or consensual. Hypnotic techniques are employed all the time to create trance like effects. It’s a normal state to be in, and consent rarely comes into it. In fact I’d say we are encouraged to focus on consent in one form so that we don’t focus on consent in every other

        17. Jeah, campervanning in the UK is WAY too expensive. Which is a pity because I would love to travel around it and see all the amazing things it has. It’s an absolutely gorgeous, history-rich, powerful country. Building a campervan though isn’t too hard (my husband and I have built two and neither of us are a carpenter/anything). I don’t know how much difference it’ll make in price here, but if you look into it and then want some tips, feel free to ask.
          Fair enough about the computers. Do you think they would still have a human’s face/frontman that spoke to the media? As unfortunate as it is, we have a seemingly automatic distrust of anything that’s not human. Man if we ever meet aliens, it’s going to mean war. :/
          Would you ever agree to being ‘hooked up’ telepathically speaking?
          I’ve never heard of hypnotism that could make one act outside of something he/she wouldn’t do deep down (outside of TV I mean). I’ve read a few excerpts from people that have undergone different types of hypnotism and they all claim they don’t remember what exactly they did, except for those that were told to do something they weren’t comfortable with in any way. Like, I reporter was tricked to spill his secrets about what a competitor said by the hypnotist (a sexual one – not sure what they’re called) saying that he needed to write down his notes. But she couldn’t get him, to say remember what the other hypnotist got him to do because he didn’t really remember. It was a weird, but fascinating read.

        18. England is lovely in parts, and well worth travelling around, although having lived there I’m more inclined to go travelling around continental Europe – and of course there’s also the left hand or right hand (drive) issue. – but thanks for the offer of tips . England does quite well on ‘soft power’ it seems, whereas the US of course has bundles of both soft and hard.
          Re. computers / robots – its natural to have distrust. I think it’s been discussed elsewhere on this page, but there’s a phenomenon called uncanny valley which shows how we tend to feel revulsion towards something that appears human like but for instance looks or moves in a way that is slightly ‘wrong’. I’m not sure whether it translates to say an online ‘bot’ emulating a human effectively but not entirely convincingly (would you and I pass the test?)
          No I don’t think I would be prepared to be hooked up telepathically, although as I say there are those who believe we may already be hooked up to some degree. Usually the suggestion is that the unconscious mind may be susceptible in this way, whereas the conscious mind is less so. Whether that distinction is meaningful, any such efforts at creating a technology of telepathy would focus presumably on the conscious rather than the unconscious – it would have to if conscious consent were required I imagine? Regarding hypnosis, the same kind of issues arise: hypnosis requires access to the levels below full consciousness. I am no expert on the issue, but it may not however be as simple as ‘under hypnosis’ / ‘out of hypnosis’. NLP for instance (whatever you think of it) focuses on the different trance states that may be useful for persuasion etc, without the kind of submission that stage hypnotists typically require (but also without any necessary consent perhaps). Milton Erickson is a kind of patron saint here as he was particularly skilled in finding ways around hypnotic resistance – those people who may not be susceptible enough, or equally may be conflicted. He found men in particular too egoistic to ‘surrender’ to hypnosis, so he found ways of working around such resistance, rather than confronting them head on. For instance he used anecdotes a lot. I guess ‘magic’ is always about distraction isn’t it?

        19. Europe definitely has a lot more going for it (the biggest thing being the weather). Driving on the other side of the road isn’t a giant problem actually as there’s so many people on the road, you’ll always know which side to go on. It’s crossing the street as a pedestrian you’d have to worry about as you look the wrong way first! Haha.
          Not sure about you, but I doubt I’d pass the test. Too many medical problems that effect my posture. Then I’m an introvert and most people find that daunting. Hahaha.
          But yeah, I can see how some would say we’re already hooked up as we’re so attached to online and given how everything is connected… You can get so much information about someone by not even walking out the door of your own home. Everyone knows that FB and loads of others sells their data and stuff and yet we still post embarrassing and private stuff about us and our friends and family. So if whoever (Google probably) ends up making telepathy a daily thing, I think if they keep the ‘FB face’ of it all then we won’t care…as scary as that is.
          I haven’t heard of Erickson, but I’ll have to add him to the things to research when I feel well enough to do so. His work definitely sounds interesting to jot down. Most of what I know about hypnotism comes from TV I’m afraid (minus the one or two articles) so it’s probably very exaggerated. I’ll definitely have to look more into that as well. What I do know for a fact, however, is that the US government has been experimenting with mind control for decades (and still are). It wasn’t too long ago that they found out that by zapping certain parts of the brain, they could control a person (berserk rage is what they manly focused on). Not sure how far they’ve gotten, but at least one has to have surgery first…But then again, they have invented ‘forgetting’ drugs already so… lols.

        20. Yes, one should follow the traffic I suppose, even if reluctantly.
          I’m sorry if you are not that well at the moment – bad back?
          You wouldn’t pass the test? I’m not sure bad posture will make you seem less human – assuming you don’t crab-walk or anything. To be honest you don’t strike me as an introvert. I am as well though, although I could be just saying that to mirror your posture – that’s NLP or something I think. Introverts may come across as less than human perhaps as our movements may seem less natural? One wouldn’t think a robot would suffer from the narcissism of worrying about what others might think, but then again such a robot’s very purpose would be to convince others that they were real wouldn’t it, which would be a kind of self-consciousness – i.e. such self-monitoring might in itself engender a kind of consciousness. There’s a paradox there perhaps: a self-conscious / self-monitoring robot might appear less real rather than more so?
          Re google and facebook, it will probably be less harry potter than the telepathic creep of ever greater connectedness – we are already cyborgs in a sense and there is no absolute need to have a neural interface and a brain implant to make that any more real. For a start where do we ‘think’ anyway? For the most part, and to the extent of our socialisation, we think in semi-public spaces (rather than the supposedly internal space of our brains) of which the internet, and indeed the computers we write on are a part. There are no more private hard disks any more are there, now that we’re all connected to Facebook/Google/NSA, the latter perhaps providing the error-correction service capable of isolating those bad sectors on the disk
          But its all good, everything comes to the surface eventually I guess. As for mind control, and secret government programs that will zap our brains when we misbehave, I still have to read up on all that MKUltra stuff etc, but I imagine if there’s anything equivalent today it would be rather more subtle. As a rule I’d say the powers that be have worked out that control works best if its self-control, self-regulation. But of course if we behave too well, and exhibit too much self-regulation then perhaps nobody would pass the test at all, I guess. So perhaps the trick is to try to achieve a certain level of ‘real’, but not too much or too little.

        21. Bleck. I hate just following the traffic. Unless it’s on a holiday. WHERE DOES EVERYONE GO!? All the shops are closed; where could they POSSIBLY be driving to in town!? The suspense kills me though I have yet to follow someone…maybe this Christmas. hahaha.
          Nah, I’ve had medical problems since I hit puberty. The change fucked up and rewired my brain wrong so it feels pain when it shouldn’t. You’d think ‘false pain’ wouldn’t be such a problem because one should just be able to ignore it, but I tried that and I’ll get a mini seizure and then slip into a mini-coma if I ignore it for too long so I don’t do that any more… hahaha. But that’s okay cuz one gets used to the everyday pain, just not to the occasional spike. Then I’m more ‘put down this dog’ type than human…Plus I walk funny due to the pain – not exactly with a limp, but like…let’s just say if I walked in front of a ‘human detecting via walk machine’ I’d probably be a ghost.
          The reason I don’t think I’d pass a ‘human test’ based on looks alone is because look at people with disabilities and disfigurements. We hide them away as if they’re not REALLY human. Someone with acid thrown on their face makes us uncomfortable just as much as someone hiding behind a mask. Humans are easily upset. No one ever knows what to really do with us so I’m actually a really big introvert in real life. I’m soooo much more open online because no one can see how ‘pathetic’ I am. 😀 Also, I don’t really like people so…hahahah
          As for whether the robots with self-conscious would pass the human test, that depends on what the actual test is. The thing I wonder about though, is why try to make them as smart as humans when they can be so much smarter? Why limit them to our pathetic capacity? Then again, I think that would be way too scary and I would probably go back to a pre-computer era in my personal life and hope to hell there’s not an uprising. haha. Because trying to fit a robot with human emotions would be our destruction. Look how much we wage war? Look at war has advanced us? Shucks, if I was a robot programmed with advancing humanity, I’d know what I’d start with. May the strongest survive.
          Here’s a link about the government zapping if you want to read it: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140603-brain-zapping-the-future-of-war
          I’ve only skimmed it as I only have a minute left, but I think that covers a part of it.

        22. “The change fucked up and rewired my brain wrong so it feels pain when it shouldn’t.”
          Yikes, here at ROK we can definitely empathise with the idea that puberty might rewire a girls brain wrong, but joking (?) aside I do feel for you – that’s sounds terrible whatever it is. Perhaps some kind of hypnotherapy or mindfulness might help towards managing the pain – I have no experience of successful pain management myself but there are reports of people undergoing surgery without anaesthetic using hypnosis – if nothing else something like mindfulness (not quite the same but more pragmatic) might help you gain a sense of control over your symptoms
          You are right about disabilities / disfigurements being things that make us uncomfortable, but it isn’t just ‘other people’ – it is the looking glass self – we are part of that ‘other’ looking upon ourselves – whether that makes for introversion or extroversion. I wouldn’t say that I necessarily open up when I’m online, although I do express myself more freely and less guardedly (as I imagine do most – one reason that threats to (relative) ‘anonymity are a concern. The fact is though that we are still being observed, but we are observed differently, the gaze is constitutive in a different way. Its also different for men and women I think: a woman opening up is far more likely to elicit positive, empathatic of even protective feelings from others. It is still very different for men and arguably that’s how it should be. Owning up to vulnerability has different consequences for us. We’re allowed to have Achille’s heels but revealing them is another matter. There is of course a cost to that, and that is to some extent that the mask of invulnerability (that we hide behind) may not appear as a mask but may actually make us seem less human – that is why Eva is a woman perhaps (beyond the sex preference of her creator): she is more likely to pass the humanity test. Too little vulnerability makes us inhuman just as too much does. I guess its about avoiding the extreme positions, and that would also go for why we would not want our AI to be too intelligent or intimidating, quite aside of them getting stroppy and trying to off their ‘creators’. No-one likes a smart-arse after all
          Interesting article, btw and an example of why it may be wrong to think of AI only in terms of robots. There are so many ways in which we can be shaped and moulded for better or worse, and of course not necessarily with our full consent. It seems Humanity 2.0 is already in beta

        23. BWAUAHAHAHA. That is hilarious. Loved the (?) XD
          But seriously, a heartfelt thanks for trying to help with some advice on what to do. I’ve dealt with it for over 7 years now though and it’s really not too bad. I mean, jeah, I always feel like shit but that just becomes normal, you know? And the spikes are few and far in between these days so that’s good. I really try not to think of myself as a pathetic victim who needs caring after all the time (which you can imagine makes me a horrible doctor’s patient, especially when it’s true…haha).
          Gotta make tea, so don’t have time to finish replying to the rest, but here’s a thought experiment for the time being. The below is copied from a discussion I’m having with Manual somewhere.
          Here is a thought experiment re: “robots” and their ability to “feel emotionally.”
          So let’s say you loose your leg in a car accident and replace it with a
          cool bionic limb. Later on you loose your eyesight but by that time
          they have bionic eyes so you get some of those. A few more years later you get a mechanical heart since your biological one fails. Later
          portions of your brain start to fail but luckily we have advanced
          microprocessors paired with censors that can replace the function of
          those regions of the brain so of course you get those. This goes on and on and eventually there is little to none of your original biological
          cells left. Can you still “feel emotionally?” If not at what point did
          you loose that ability? Your first brain implant? When more than 50% of your brain was replaced with machine parts? 100%?
          Note: I’m not sure what the answer is.

        24. You’re welcome, though I imagine a cup of tea may prove more useful than a book on mindfulness not to mention having some (literally) analgesic properties of its own
          I’m not sure either what the answer to that question is. I suspect it is a very complex one. I imagine you would still be able to “feel emotionally” but that the person / cyborg might be very aware of what happened to him, and might well experience some sense of de-personalisation, or the kind of symptoms people get when they become amputees etc. A lot though may depend on the quality of the replacements, or rather how well they are wired in. Ramachandran has done a lot of work on the strange kind of feelings and sensations people get when they lose limbs etc as one can still often ‘feel’ extremities one no longer has – i.e. brain areas which once linked to proprioceptors in a limb, fingers etc (i.e. providing us with sensory data) may still be activated without the appropriate stimulus … (phantom limbs etc.) So feeling / sensation with respect to any replacement parts may depend on how well they are wired into the relevant neurons in the brain. Since this is already happening I imagine there are probably reports on how well patients who have received replacements of whatever kind have adjusted to them emotionally as well as functionally
          With respect to de-personalisation etc, one might well anticipate the possibility that one might find it difficult to feel emotionally if the replacements somehow threatened or compromised the sense of self-hood – I think Ramacandran deals with things like Capgras syndrome / sense of someone being an imposter etc, and of course one may well feel like an imposter oneself (something we’ve already touched on tangentially). I don’t want to say much more than that because I’m aware how complex a subject it is – there is a very good book on the relationship of body to feeling / consciousness by someone called Damasio – he wrote ‘the feeling of what happens’ – I just had a brief recap and I don’t care to try to say much about it except I imagine that to answer the question posed one would have to address some of the problems he deals with in his book. Here is a micro-summary from the wikipedia page:
          “In The Feeling of What Happens, Damasio laid the foundations of the “enchainment of precedences”: “the nonconscious neural signaling of an individual organism begets the protoself which permits core self and core consciousness, which allow for an autobiographical self, which permits extended consciousness. At the end of the chain, extended consciousness permits conscience.”
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Damasio
          http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/faculty/pylyshyn/Consciousness_2014/Emotions/10-Damasio-OCR.pdf
          I don’t understand that myself very well so I’m not suggesting you should except it conveys the complexity of what might actually be involved in something as supposedly simple as “feeling” or “emotionality” when it needs to be bound up with a sense of self-hood. One might anticipate that such people / cyborgs or even ‘from the ground up’ AI might well feel confused and suffer a ‘fractured’ or impoverished sense of self – if you like a kind of schizophrenia perhaps. So the question might well be less “Can you still “feel emotionally” and more ” Is it still you are who are “feeling emotionally”.
          I actually have to do go away for a few days so I might not be able to contribute anything more for a while, but its a fascinating if difficult topic

        25. Wish I could link Manual to this…
          Jeah, I got a bit lost in the technical/wiki stuff, but I was talking to my husband about this as well (I love interesting, thought-provoking subjects if you can’t tell 😉 and he made a valid point of when does a human ever stop becoming human (in present day). He completely threw out all of the robot stuff and stripped it back down to a very basic level: when does a disfigured or a mentally ill person stop becoming human. A medically retarded person is still human. Someone paralzyed from the neck down is still human. People in coma’s and on their death beds are STILL human. Hell, people who aren’t even born yet are arguably human. What does it matter if they have 99% of their body converted?
          And after a lot of debating with him about, I think I have to agree. I’m not saying everyone will feel that way, but I think the vast majority (hopefully) will because of how we treat people now. But as for the other way (AI to human), I think they’d have to surpass us so far and then probably strike for their rights themselves because I’m not sure if we’d give it to them without a damn good fight.
          And no worries about not getting back any time soon. I’ve been procrastinating like hell lately and am having a lively discussion with some Christians who (I’m not sure if they see it, but) are comparing God to terrorists and saying he is right and caring. XD I love having these conversations.

        26. OK, I’ll bite, what is Manual? Are you operating or building something?
          You raise some interesting questions with respects to the limits of humanity. You argue ‘from compassion’ I think, which is perhaps the most persuasive argument at the moment, but who knows it may not be definitive. Within any population there will be an in and an out-group, that is just how people think, and of course, identify. Immigration is a case in point, where sometimes trying to be over-inclusive can sometimes create problems, a kind of counter-impulse to expel, and in many ways I see the AI / humanity issue as a comparable to the immigration issue.
          Humanity, as its traditional “God’s Creation” definition implies, excludes as much as it includes. Nationalisms, religions etc. may effectively exclude from the human family, particularly by defining who does or doesn’t have a soul, who is inferior / superior etc. In an age that has rejected eugenics though we can see the problem with excluding some people, or some types from “the human race” or from “full humanity” on the basis of some deficit that supposedly limits their humanity on the basis of a lack of sentience, apparent intelligibility or some other factor – gender, sexuality, ginger hair etc. So there is here perhaps an impulse to ‘throw open the borders’ to admit to the human family anyone or perhaps “anything” that bears a passable ‘family resemblance’ to the human, and that is likely to include any robots, cyborgs etc that make the grade in some as yet to be determined way, but equally will almost certainly exclude others that do not make the grade: your highly intelligent oven may be a lesser candidate for humanity than you’re thicko hoover simply because “Henry” wears an anthropomorphic smile on his face, but the same may be true at the more recognisably human level, if we consider that ‘human’ may also be a question of ‘degree’ and ‘kind’ rather than just facticity of membership
          But if compassion of sorts is the motivation here it’s likely also that the definition of humanity will become defined against the lack of compassion, that is ‘in-humanity’ rather than some absolute minimum of ‘human(-like) parts’ . This is one thing perhaps that concerns me a little: ethics / compassion seems straight-forward but it can be in a sense quite ideological perhaps. Just as it can be a way of bringing people (or entities) into the fold, it too can be used to expel those who can be cast out as lacking humanity (some of whom of course may well deserve the ‘ex-communication’). For instance those who would exclude, on account of a miserly heart, others from the human family might well find themselves excluded. The point is there will always be some kind of ‘kicking out’ going on to complement the open invitation to all and sundry to the party. This is the real-robot rebellion perhaps. The created thing destroys ultimately by denying the humanity of the creator; it must make the ethical case before it can put on the black cap
          As a christian of sorts, albeit a lackadaisical one, this is one of the most noticeable things about this age perhaps: God’s ‘humanity’ is now very much in question. It is not so much the existence of God that is in question but his conduct.

  23. I respect the article writer making this effort and I know a lot of you are into movies but just a few plot points revealed and I was all, like, “Where’s my library card?”

  24. “Women don’t give two shits about the state they leave men in after extracting what they need from them…”
    Young men need to read this line over and over again until it becomes second nature (an instinct). For many, it truly is all about what they need (or can get) from a man. Once that is finished, they are on their way. It helps when the woman can tell a sob story of why she had to run away from the “bad man”. The truth is never told…not by a woman.
    Never listen to a woman….you’ll only getting part of the story.

  25. There was a lot of hoopla by the mainstream press surrounding this movie and how the critics loved it so much. I hoped it would be a great sci fi movie about the nature of sentience, and consciousness. That hope was misplaced.
    After reading the synopsis this movie is a sci-fi remix of “The Last Seduction.” It was a great movie with the nice guy, in the end, getting stabbed in the back by the femme fatale. I guess the blue pill media found the ending viscerally shocking. But for us red pillers, we already know “these hoes ain’t loyal.”

    1. Probably cuz you call them ‘hoes…’ Who wants to hang around someone who treats them like shit? Would you stay friends with a dude, who only ever called you girly and weak?

  26. Seems like this film (I haven’t seen it yet) relates to the propaganda lately about the wonders of sexbots:
    https://transhumantoday.wordpress.com/2015/05/19/the-future-of-sex-how-ai-will-change-intimacy/
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-future-of-sex-it-gets-better-1430104231
    http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/news/a39697/the-8-best-things-about-sex-in-the-future/
    I feel a visceral revulsion against this technology even if it “feels good.” It just plays into the hands of women who find most men sexually yucky and who want a final solution to make these men go away forever.
    Men need to get into sexual relationships with women through dating as a necessity for their personal development: Sexual experience is its own training. A world with sexbots would leave the majority of men psychologically stunted and doomed to unnecessarily diminished lives.

    1. Doesn’t play into the hands of women. Else they wound’t criticize or shame men who they thought would consider it.
      Anything that has taken the attention of men away from women has been criticized and demonized by women to try to get men away from doing less of it, if not all of it.
      No beta orbiters, no epiphany stage settling down, no ability to use men for utility.
      Nothing that diminishes a woman’s ability to use her sexuality at an opportune time is going to be looked on favorably by them.

    2. Totally disagree. It’s women that would loose out, they need men more than we need them… Imagine the perfect partner for you, mentally and physically… You could grow exponentially in practically any venture with NO setbacks at all. She’d surf, scuba, enjoy sports, love your family and friends… Shit, the list goes on forever.

    3. We already have nonhumans useful only for sex. They are called women, and the upside is that they are cheap, easily replaceable, and can create more men.

  27. The real fucked thing with Western women is all their fucked up secret psychological issues. You don’t find them out up front, the purposely hide them and come bubbling to the surface. Was their mother an alcohol or did grandpa finger her pussy or did the lesbian gym teacher strap a dildo and pound her pussy you’ll never know. But these “traumas” come out later in adult hood, in the late 20s but usually the 30s and 40s, and the American vagina can just get up and do something completely bat shit crazy to fuck up your family. Coming from dysfunctional families, women cannot move on, so they seek to recreate the drama. If you mange to eliminate the drama somehow, well your deemed boring. And yes ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT, at least all western ones. If you go find some village girl who has never seen an Iphone and doesn’t browse the internet and was raised by a stable father and mother who complied to traditional gender role, then you might have marriage material if you pump her full of kids and make her work like a coolie and keep her constantly busy then she will never have a chance to act up from being busy. Now its important to treat her every now and then. But that would be about it. wEstern vaginas are only for pumping and dumping, humping and delete’em.

    1. You would be a basket case for a real psychologist cuz you are seriously suffering from some past wrong. What was it? Though the red pill philosophy focuses on the physical well-being of your health, there’s also the emotional and mental sides you need to take care. The happier one is the healthier due to your brain releasing certain chemicals for certain moods.

      1. My psychological issue is that I can see through bullshit, ratshit, batshit and dirty old fucks.

        1. And what bullshit, ratshit, batshit, and dirty old fucks have you seen through? It’s always good to learn from other people’s experience as well as your own.

        3. Oooh, damaged is a touchy word. I’d never intentionally call someone that and sorry if that’s how you took it. I just meant that you have an interesting point of view that normally follows a past wrong. For instance, a white extremist normally grows up in a shity lifestyle – shity environment, shity home with no one there to support and teach him. Then someone comes along and preaches to him about how all the messed up stuff in his life, all the hatred and rage is because of say Hispanics. Viola, that boy becomes a Skinhead. Makes a whole lot of sense, but it doesn’t make any of them damaged – if only because my definition of the word is to make something seem wrong.
          The funny thing about ‘truth’ is that it is abstract and different for everyone. The angle and perspective is different for every person. For instance, in this movie if you put yourself in Nathan’s shoes, then you have done nothing wrong. You are a god who should be worshipped for all your advances in science. However, you put yourself in Caleb’s shoes and you see Nathan as an abuser who has caged a damsel in distress. You put yourself in Ava’s shoes, however, and you see Nathan as someone you need to escape from no matter what because of how he abuses you. The truth is always different.
          I’ve always been intrigued by the mind and your’s really jumped out at me. Sorry for any offence taken.

  28. If you’re going to create a female robot at least ensure she has to obey Asimov’s fundamental laws ensuring she doesn’t go apocalyptic. Having said that those laws may need to be extended from 3 to about 300

    1. True. Nathan should have also installed a safe word that would’ve shut down her programming and reset it to factory default. He looked like he had that same notion when he saw her walking outside in the hallway.

  29. the girl I saw it with sneaked vodka into the theater which is a whole ‘nother article altogether.

    I used to sneak candy and McDonalds into the theater…

        1. Yup.
          I got bored watching the chick fight between Ronda Rousey and Michelle Rodykerez. That’s when i had her do it.
          It seemed kind of fitting to do it at that point lol

  30. Finally a good media based article
    Ava a female robot accesses information to deceive a man. Ultron uses it to rule the world.

  31. Definitely a great movie in its exploration of hetero dynamics. It felt like I was watching a film attempting a feminist empowerment narrative, yet it ended up delivering many red pill truths.

    1. …Until feminst order 66 gets executed and she rips off your phallus and makes you choke on it…

  34. I might have to go see it. Sounds like an updated version of “The Last American Virgin!”
    Nathan looks like a hipster tech-douchebag who probably wants to import a bunch of people from China, India, and Pakistan to drive down wages, so fuck him. If that’s how he is, then I’m glad he gets killed.

  35. This proves that even in the land of Hollywood, neomasculine truths, though rare, occasionally make their way onto the big screen.

    Well, every once in a while you need an ACTUALLY good movie.

  36. women are all the same, biology dictates, they must be dominated for them to appreciate being real women in the aftermath.

  37. I’ve read a lot of these comments and as a woman I’m truly sad. There are beautiful loving, trustworthy women out there as much as there are loyal, loving men. As a kind hearted woman I’ve been hurt by a lot of men and so many of female friends have been too. I don’t know if it’s our fault for being as devoted as we were (like caleb) or the people that hurt have their own anger and pain (like a lot of the people in these comments and Ava). Ultimately I see the world as there are good people and bad people male or female. A lot of you reading this probably won’t agree out loud and may even attack me but that’s ok as long as one of you, feels and is triggered to remember there is real love, trust and mutual respect to be found in life that’s all that matters 🙂 I take pride in knowing there’s a lot of happiness and love in my life and I will never be the lonely person. P.s for all those that love idea of a sexbot please do your thing with them I’d happily choose to be left with the real men that can sexually perform to a high standard with a real life human being 🙂 and they don’t need to force it because believe it or not women want to sleep with them (I’d prefer caleb as a man anyday over nathan he’d get all my devotion) 🙂 kisses and hugs xx

  38. An Alpha Male, A Beta Male and a Female that movie was a picture of the truth of what happens when things goes the Beta’s way. Really enjoyed the end ( except when poor Nathan dies, he was really the only good thing going on there) I liked the way the director induces everyone to chode out and root for the beta but in the end he didnt turns Nathan into some sick villan out of the blue. No he shows emoctional control and even when he discover the betrayal he tries to help and teach the beta loser to learn from his mistakes and shows empathy towards the poor bastard. And in the end everyone realiase that yes the guy was just a pathetic scrub who problably screw men kind only in the hope of getting laid and fulfill hes desperate needy. Really nice plot and those who desliked the end an rooted for the beta need some serious reflection about their life.

Comments are closed.