Reminds me of the fallout thing. Leftoids saying for years how it was such a genius criticism of capitalism and then the original creator of the series came out and just flat out said nope.
Original Fallout, with 2, stands by itself. 3, under Bethesda, was... an attempt to move it into 3D. It succeeded in some parts, failed wildly in others. New Vegas is closer to the OG lore and that's it, nothing special. More people so more options for skill checks speech etc than 3. Theeeen modern year hit in 2015 and it's been nothing but a smouldering crater. I refuse to watch the goyslop that is the series.
I thought it was more a criticism of South Korea which is absurd even by American standards with their weird corporate fascism. The far-left has no problem using the system to beat the system, and no, do not care about the hypocrisy.
Also underappreciated that lottery tickets can "break even" meaning it'll pay back the price of the ticket or a little bit more quite frequently to keep people playing the game, so even though the writer wants you to think he only has an astronomical chance of winning anything, he could easily get more than a small loaf of bread is worth in like a one in five chance.
This is baked into the system. If you build a lottery that does not let you return after a loss , you don't have a compelling loss - a draw. This is also how gambling works - It's not about win/lose, it's about the emotion when losing and bringing that person back to continue - usually via drinking, drugs, women, entertainment, and pacification - Next Time. You're just in an unlucky streak, etc. The concept isn't about gambling - it's about pride and mentality to some extent. The christian ethos of taking care of others is culturally embellished because it helps uplift a society from the bottom up. Asian countries, it's not as present, and you can sort of notice that poverty / safety net gap when it's pointed out. Charity, isn't normal, nor is it required to operate - but you notice it when it's missing. And you notice it most in the extremes. Especially when there's a wealth / inflationary mountain / gentrification gap where people are begging on streets or stealing from children, kidnapping, drug dealing, or hiding corruption and trafficking of children, et al, next to people who drive fleets of Armored Bentleys with colour matched panels. A content person will not choose, a desperate person will take the risk, a good person will choose the bread. Not because it's about being good, but giving others the opportunity. And while the illusion is that more people are good - the reality is scarce. 1% to 5% are selfless - the rest donate out of shame. The author wants people to think there's hope, but also show that realism of selflessness. And, it's a refrain towards a middle class, that poverty isn't poverty. It's a condition born from greed and avarice - jealousy and compulsion to strive. To compete, but also cheat, to gamble, to not face reality and to embellish their own story. Mostly because Korea has way too many people to allow for resource distribution - there's no safety net. If you fall, you fall into debts you cannot pay back easily. A business can shut down, an accident can injure you, or your family can perish. And you have to start from below where you began. You can be a poor person, or a refined person, a noble soul. Those that are poor, are poor because of their lack of opportunity, but also intelligence and drive. They can't just pick the bread and take a small win, they want more than what others can give. Like Crabs in a Bucket, they see something that others have and they want to pull others down instead. The same principle applies to someone who wins too much, they have to lose around 1/3 to 1/2 the time, or the teams that lose will not compete anymore, or not compete fairly and start to gang up or cheat in order to win.
^ this 5~10$ wins (or the value of the ticket) are quite common since the lottery company knows if the winnings are the same as the price of the ticket, most of their clients will use them to buy a new ticket. On average picking the ticket is a significantly better decision.
Another thing about this scene as a metaphor vs this scene as "a reality" playing out. Look at the bread. It's not even a loaf. Just a single bun that costs probably less than one €. As you said, these hobos don't seem starving. They can beg that together in a short time in such a city and they might not even need to. South Korea has bottle refunds. This scene just looks like someone wasn't good enough to make it look like a metaphor, like a myth, a fable, or doesn't know enough about poor people life.
That is all life is. Picking trade-offs. On a large scale some will do well with lotto tickets and the rest despair immediately. Later with continued bad odds the lotto winner ends up broke and despairing again.
“I offer you; this uncooked fish or this loaded handgun.” Breadtubers for the next twelve years: “UHH, this scene is so powerful. It is such a biting critique of capitalism! I must make a four hour video essay!” 🎩 🐍 no step on snek🇺🇸🇭🇰
bro, they don't make 4hour essays, they aren't mauler, they make 10 minute videos with a shill page at the front, sponsors taking 3 minutes at middle and end, and just saying its deep on loop
@@janehrahan5116 Philosophy Tube, Contrapoints, and their clones and poor imitators exist. Almost forgot Hbomberguy. And they do hour+ video essay. It's just not a meaningful discussion of every important detail in a movie or any piece of art|/entertainment, but instead about nonsensical postmodern and usually neo-marxist critiques of completely normal or healthy and natural stuff. The "wall of text" meme is not about leftists making long but meaningful posts/thoughts of any kind, but about them making long posts of little substance or actual meaning as they fail to put concisely and square the message of their self-contradictory ideology. They make long posts with no points to them, because their ideology, which doesn't work or make sense, cannot support any meaningful point/message. Whereas a non-woke, non-progressive people can make long essays with many meaningful points as they are not constraint by any nonsensical ideology.
I would take the lottery ticket, immediately scratch it and pretend I'd won, then run away laughing like a maniac. That'll give him something to think about.
It's always funny to see critics of "Capitalism" using commerce to make a bunch of money, becoming rich and successful. They prove that if you have a popular idea or product, people will reward you. Nobody is oppressing you when you have a more free society, yet they constantly advocate for having a less free society so that you would have less of the things they want.
@@DarkForce2024when it first came out I thought it was just one of those weird Japanese game shows. I didn't know it was a drama until my buddy put me on to it
This feels like they heard the expression "give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day but set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life" and got completely the wrong message from it.
I see what you mean, here in most 1st world countries even as a homeless person you have your basic necessities covered, you aren’t dying of famine or forced to eat grass and mud for nutrients. As so the bread isn’t all that special in a place like South Korea, in North Korea however it would be a big deal because they do in fact eat grass for nutrients and NK currency is worthless.
I don't know if it's the same in Korea, but those scratch tickets also have smaller prices with much better odds and the smallest amount is worth more than the bread
This scene could also be interpreted as the Recruiter justifying his actions. A way of reaffirming people would rather take all or nothing risks than take safer smaller guarantees. In other words, people who get themselves killed in the games are not his fault. Then again, he’s just another crazy person.
You speak as if everyone that goes to those games doesn't have a choice. It's funny how you cattle are never responsible for your own choices isn't it?
The recruiter is picked for this purpose, my guess is from the pool of previous winners (sic). He knows what the offer is, he also knows what the reward will do. People will die, and he is going to give them a choice they cannot, will not refuse. If they do, there's next year. And he's choosing people that he now sees himself as being above. In an organisation of this size and clandestine purpose, there's probably a moral philosophy which underpins the games - protecting society or some cultish phenomena.
The Bread can be earned by other means and can only give a day's respite to hunger. The lottery ticket with extremely low chance, can upturn the rest of your life.
And the fact that they go consistenly with the extremely low chance is why they are broke an hungry, thats the point. You build up very slowly, "a bread a time" and alot of people cant do that.
@@nicodives1974 Far too many people right now being broke and hungry without being their fault for me to agree. Like Kalifornyanya. But as a mindset. "A bread at a time" is good practice.
@@Aserbic Oh i agree is not always the case, thats why i said "alot of pleople". But the idea of the scene is pretty clear, its not about capitalism, is about the mindset of people consistenly making bad decisions and that being the reasson of their crappy situations. "We are the architects of our own hell".
Same, even with it being in hundreds of millions (or the fact I live like 2 blocks from a casino), I still choose not to gamble. Even if the ticket were to cost 50 cents and I could get hundreds of millions from such, I still wouldn't gamble.
@@inteallsviktigt He wasn't an MEP, he was in commerce regulation and he was dealing in censorship. Yes, a man of this stature would have access to such info.
As a person that never plays lotto, or gambles or anything, if I was in their place where I'm very poor, but still fed well enough to live, I'd probably choose the lotto as well. If the food were something more substantial like a big loaf of bread, or meat or whathaveyou, then I'd take a second guess, but as is eating the bread won't change anything, just give me a meal I would otherwise have to scrounge abit for.
I think the scene was an allegory for consumerism or more specifically, South Korean consumerism. Kinda like, "Would you as a middle-class person buy the over-priced gucci bag in hope for more social-capital or would you save money and be prudent in your middle-class life?" It was entertaining but way too simplistic really. I can give a difficult choice to a lefty too. "Would you stay in a capitalist system and work to slowly fix it within capitalism or would you risk revolution and mass murder then eventually become capitalist anyway(what happened with China and Russia)?" Of course most artists tend to lean left so they more or less never ask the latter.
Ironically the homeless people are better off than the people picked for the games because at least the homeless people arent probably in thousands of dollars in debt lol
I would be way too suspicious of that bread, it may be poisoned or otherwise laced with something. I'm not eating something from a stranger on the street. Loto ticket on the other hand seems relatively harmless, maybe you get something maybe you don't.
There's been drug laced money left for people (like far more than the usual amounts you may find). The world is messed up. Imagine getting a fent overdose from picking up a $20 bill.
If they take the bread they eat a little today. If they take the lottery ticket they have the chance, however slim, to eat for several days. If the lottery ticket is a loser they're no worse off than they already are.
This scene was interesting to me, it made me consise it to be his verison of a mini game. Either you take the safety of eating for the day (the safety of not risking) or you gamble on your chances of being a winner and getting out in one swift action.
Been homeless before. People throw a lot of food away so finding food is pretty easy. But that ticket on the other hand though a bit harder to find and you didn't have to spend what little you had to get it
That scene had me rolling my eyes tbh. I don't actually know what the people were thinking when making it, but to me it reeks of the idea that the poor are bad people. I'm South Korean, and at least when I was younger, the population (and the media) had a problem of genuinely believing that poor people are bad, or inherently uncouth, etc. The entirety of Squid Game has a little bit of that air, though of course it also turns it upside down a little by showing that the rich are or can be just as bad... idk, it's hard to parse totally.
Well it seems like the creator of the show just barely got the memo that socialism is rising in America, so the whole TV show has been written and shot trying to pander to those ideals, but they are so genuinely shit at it they'll only manage to hinder their appeal. What I'm trying to say is: the writers don't really care about socialism that's why all their "skating social commentary" falls flat.
Option A: Piece of bread that's about 2$ worth Option B: A lotto ticket that's worth 0$ to 750k$ If you pick lotto and got nothing, you would be like "meh, whatever, i can literally beg or work for an hour and get that bread" However, if you pick bread and learn that lotto had even like 10$, maan ngl i'd be a bit frustrated. And the frustration only gets amplified with higher prize money, i don't think a homeless man could even handle missing out on a 750k loss, that would absolutely wreck him lol
Well no, which is the issue with it. Those who start out with tons of cash can strangle any challenger trying to improve. And the system is vulnerable to an alliance-of-losers scheme as well. Among other issues.
@bc-cu4on no matter what system is in place that will happen. You can't bend nature's will without it snapping back. And no one starts out with tons of cash it was earned over generations. Because these people looked after their families not their own interests.
@@vespasianflavius2766 Bullshit. The only way to be rich besides inheritance is theft. Just because you're "only" descended from a criminal doesn't mean that your wealth wasn't stolen in the first place.
Most of socialist critique, even the socialitst grifters' one, of capitalism comes of to me as some kind of critique of greed. The issue with their socialist critique isn't _what_ they are critiquing, but _how_ or _why._ Most "well-meaning" or good faith socialist are usually naive, too idealistic, don't fully understand what or why they are critiquing it or how to actually resolve their issues with the problem. And the socialist 'grifters', as many/any grifters, have a power-hungry or monetary greed problem of their own, so it's usually more out of jealousy that they _use_ socialist, or any other, critique.
That's kind of been my problem too. They'll say people are evil under capitalism because capitalism makes them that way but somehow many of those same people are just gonna be good because socialism happens? It reminds me of how I saw a video covering Thought Slime and how he basically said we could just put all of our resources in a warehouse and people can just come and take what we need.
I’m definitely not taking the bread. It could be poisoned. With the ticket it’s definitely just a ticket. These people are clearly not starving. If they were and they still chose the ticket than ya that’s a bad choice. These hobos are actually making a smart choice by taking the ticket. Even if they win the smallest amount which could be like 20 bucks they could then use that to buy something substantially better than just one bread roll. Good business sense doesn’t just equal greed.
This scene made no sense within the movie. He is the recruiter guy. Why does he do that? He is not recruiting anyone. Why does he step on the bread? Sure, THEY don't wanted it, but there are enough other people who would have liked it. Also, those are homeless people, they would still eat it, even if you stepped on it. I wonder what he would have thought / said / done if some of the homless people had actually won the lottery.
Fair point, is not the most accurate, maybe offer the choise between $100 and the ticket, or a job and the ticket. But then we are nit picking, the idea is clear, its not about capitalism, is about making bad decisions. Homeless most of the time make a lifetime of bad decisions and take the easy path, never go with the "better bird in hand..." and all.
The funny thing, besides that this new scene is nothing compared to the card game in the original, this would have worked a lot better if you replaced bread with like a decent amount of money that could potentially make a change to the person's life if well spend, like a 5 of grands. So would you take a solid amount of money that could make a change in your life right away, or would you take the slim chance of winning soo much money that you'd be provided for your whole life.
Funnily enough my family( cousins love lottery tickets and the one I gave to one of them got him 100 usd and the remaining got some money. I mean a huge payout from a lottery isn’t likely but a small payout happens often enough and especially here a small loaf of bread vs let say a 15 usd winner which gets you a good burger and fries
Taking the lottery ticket over 25 cents of bread is objectively the correct decision (unless you're like a day away from dying of starvation, but even then the bread would only push that date by an hour or two at most. So the ticket is still better). While lottery tickets are a net loss compared to their prices, that doesnt apply if you get it for free. On average you'd get significantly more money with the ticket than the couple cents the bread is worth
Remember: 99% of gambling addicts always quit right before they hit the jackpot. If you're one of those gambling addicts thinking about quitting, just remember to go for that one last turn first.
I just thought of a better version of this if you choose the bread you get 3 square meals a day for the rest of your life if you chose the lotto there is a 1in 100chance that you can be the 1 to afford to give feed people 3 meals a day while living like a king .
You could also very easily see this as a critique of socialism, in the sense of the buisness man's anger. The socialists *always* preach about how voters are stupid, how they vote against "their own interest" as they call it. Whether it be voting for the socialist. Working for the capitalist as a wage slave, or any other choices normal people make the socialist hates. His stomping on the bread is an expression of that anger at their choices. The socialist cannot accept that there are other legitimate interests than their own. All contrary interests / viewpoints to the socialist must be because people are uninformed or stupid, to the socialist. And it pisses them off to no end.
Well, I've got a loaf of bread in my home. If I lost either, I would hardly have lost anything. If I won either, I get a bun, or 1,000,000 dollars. Not much to lose, but everything to gain, even if the chances are microscopic
The author caving to the corruption of capitalism proves his initial assertion. Capitalism is just as bad as communism. What we need is a genuine Free Market.
Why would you go for the bread when the lotto ticket has a chance of giving same amount of bread or alot of bread sure there is also the chance of getting no bread or 1/4 a bread 1/2 a bread . Unless you are in dire need of the bread then you should choose the lotto . If you loose then you can do your normal scavenging to get your food . It would have been better to offer the bread in 1 hand or nothing in the other hand much like I would do to beggers offer them a meal at the closest food joint as I am not handing cash out so they can buy booze .
To me , it more speak of the homeless mentality. They are still living on the edge and anything that guarantee to be not so close to the edge should be welcomed . Slowly building yourself back up , one step at a time. But no. All these bottom feeders instead chose to gamble . and a gamble that pretty much guarenteed to result in nothing gained at all. To see that so many people chose the chance at an easy way out ,instead of planning their way back to the top throught actually working would piss me off just as much. At that point , i would be more than convinced they 100% deserve their fate as homeless given their mentalities. It's probably that same mentality that brought them there to begin with.
Yes and No. They're homeless in a place that has a lot of sad stories, but also opportunities. Working hard doesn't necessarily bring rewards, and these people likely were workers once, retrenched, had accidents at work, offended a boss and were blacklisted, et al. The work ethic in Korea is massive, but so is the corruption and gentrification. The inflation between wealth and poverty is expanding, the poor can always get poorer, et al. The bread and circuses 'gamble' exposes the direct lie - asia does not have a charity culture - instead they have a work ethic that is often manipulated by others using shame tactics and 'fitting in'. The Gamble is less risky than working for someone who won't pay you, or takes advantage of your work, etc. So they make that choice, over and over. Facing the chance of making it out of their rut/depression, or making it, then failing soon after, trying to reach too high. There's plenty of stories of lottery winners unable to save the money and splurging, unable to pay taxes and buying houses they can't afford, falling back into poverty within a year. Land isn't cheap, prices go up constant due to gentrification. You can be pushed into circumstances that make you homeless with no safety net in asian coutries and forced into living off the land, or living off scraps, unable to travel outside of the city or unwilling to leave, etc.
Reminds me of the fallout thing. Leftoids saying for years how it was such a genius criticism of capitalism and then the original creator of the series came out and just flat out said nope.
It's leftoids. You expected intelligent discourse?
Original Fallout, with 2, stands by itself. 3, under Bethesda, was... an attempt to move it into 3D. It succeeded in some parts, failed wildly in others. New Vegas is closer to the OG lore and that's it, nothing special. More people so more options for skill checks speech etc than 3.
Theeeen modern year hit in 2015 and it's been nothing but a smouldering crater. I refuse to watch the goyslop that is the series.
@@ChronoSquare This. Fallout died with New Vegas (4 is fun as long as you ignore the main plot and mod the crap outta it)
"Let me criticize the system that allows me to be rich as an artist!" - out-of-touch activists.
Especially funny when TH-camrs and the like cry about it
But under communism the government would provide for everybody. I wouldn't have to work and I can just create "art".
@@vespasianflavius2766 Be careful who you cut with all that edge, Slingblade.
I thought it was more a criticism of South Korea which is absurd even by American standards with their weird corporate fascism.
The far-left has no problem using the system to beat the system, and no, do not care about the hypocrisy.
@@Nylon_riot hurt your feelings?
Also underappreciated that lottery tickets can "break even" meaning it'll pay back the price of the ticket or a little bit more quite frequently to keep people playing the game, so even though the writer wants you to think he only has an astronomical chance of winning anything, he could easily get more than a small loaf of bread is worth in like a one in five chance.
Realize that when filming those scenes, they absolutely *must* have done reshoots for a few winning tickets.
This is baked into the system. If you build a lottery that does not let you return after a loss , you don't have a compelling loss - a draw. This is also how gambling works - It's not about win/lose, it's about the emotion when losing and bringing that person back to continue - usually via drinking, drugs, women, entertainment, and pacification - Next Time. You're just in an unlucky streak, etc.
The concept isn't about gambling - it's about pride and mentality to some extent. The christian ethos of taking care of others is culturally embellished because it helps uplift a society from the bottom up. Asian countries, it's not as present, and you can sort of notice that poverty / safety net gap when it's pointed out. Charity, isn't normal, nor is it required to operate - but you notice it when it's missing.
And you notice it most in the extremes. Especially when there's a wealth / inflationary mountain / gentrification gap where people are begging on streets or stealing from children, kidnapping, drug dealing, or hiding corruption and trafficking of children, et al, next to people who drive fleets of Armored Bentleys with colour matched panels.
A content person will not choose, a desperate person will take the risk, a good person will choose the bread. Not because it's about being good, but giving others the opportunity. And while the illusion is that more people are good - the reality is scarce. 1% to 5% are selfless - the rest donate out of shame.
The author wants people to think there's hope, but also show that realism of selflessness. And, it's a refrain towards a middle class, that poverty isn't poverty. It's a condition born from greed and avarice - jealousy and compulsion to strive. To compete, but also cheat, to gamble, to not face reality and to embellish their own story.
Mostly because Korea has way too many people to allow for resource distribution - there's no safety net. If you fall, you fall into debts you cannot pay back easily. A business can shut down, an accident can injure you, or your family can perish. And you have to start from below where you began.
You can be a poor person, or a refined person, a noble soul. Those that are poor, are poor because of their lack of opportunity, but also intelligence and drive. They can't just pick the bread and take a small win, they want more than what others can give. Like Crabs in a Bucket, they see something that others have and they want to pull others down instead.
The same principle applies to someone who wins too much, they have to lose around 1/3 to 1/2 the time, or the teams that lose will not compete anymore, or not compete fairly and start to gang up or cheat in order to win.
^ this
5~10$ wins (or the value of the ticket) are quite common since the lottery company knows if the winnings are the same as the price of the ticket, most of their clients will use them to buy a new ticket.
On average picking the ticket is a significantly better decision.
Another thing about this scene as a metaphor vs this scene as "a reality" playing out. Look at the bread. It's not even a loaf. Just a single bun that costs probably less than one €. As you said, these hobos don't seem starving. They can beg that together in a short time in such a city and they might not even need to. South Korea has bottle refunds.
This scene just looks like someone wasn't good enough to make it look like a metaphor, like a myth, a fable, or doesn't know enough about poor people life.
I always thought that scene was about choices and consequences. And how the situation that your in has led to your current predicament.
That is all life is. Picking trade-offs. On a large scale some will do well with lotto tickets and the rest despair immediately. Later with continued bad odds the lotto winner ends up broke and despairing again.
@@sidecharacter7165my dad has always called lotto tickets poor people taxes or the idiot tax.
“I offer you; this uncooked fish or this loaded handgun.”
Breadtubers for the next twelve years: “UHH, this scene is so powerful. It is such a biting critique of capitalism! I must make a four hour video essay!”
🎩
🐍 no step on snek🇺🇸🇭🇰
bro, they don't make 4hour essays, they aren't mauler, they make 10 minute videos with a shill page at the front, sponsors taking 3 minutes at middle and end, and just saying its deep on loop
Id take the gun…
@@janehrahan5116 Philosophy Tube, Contrapoints, and their clones and poor imitators exist. Almost forgot Hbomberguy. And they do hour+ video essay. It's just not a meaningful discussion of every important detail in a movie or any piece of art|/entertainment, but instead about nonsensical postmodern and usually neo-marxist critiques of completely normal or healthy and natural stuff. The "wall of text" meme is not about leftists making long but meaningful posts/thoughts of any kind, but about them making long posts of little substance or actual meaning as they fail to put concisely and square the message of their self-contradictory ideology. They make long posts with no points to them, because their ideology, which doesn't work or make sense, cannot support any meaningful point/message. Whereas a non-woke, non-progressive people can make long essays with many meaningful points as they are not constraint by any nonsensical ideology.
I think if you give someone a loaded weapon, you'd better be prepared to hand over your fish, too.... 🐟
Unless you have a bigger weapon, of course.
I would take the lottery ticket, immediately scratch it and pretend I'd won, then run away laughing like a maniac. That'll give him something to think about.
It's always funny to see critics of "Capitalism" using commerce to make a bunch of money, becoming rich and successful. They prove that if you have a popular idea or product, people will reward you. Nobody is oppressing you when you have a more free society, yet they constantly advocate for having a less free society so that you would have less of the things they want.
Indeed they like to bite the hand that feeds.
We don't live in a free society.
We are tumbling towards a communist technocracy, if something doesn't change soon.
0/10 no actual squids playing games
Up until a few days ago, I thought Squid Game was an actual video game, starring Squidward from Spongebob.
@@DarkForce2024when it first came out I thought it was just one of those weird Japanese game shows. I didn't know it was a drama until my buddy put me on to it
@@DarkForce2024 i think youre referring to splatoon
which is more like the name
@@fatpotato190 Yeah, your right! I remember now!! That was probably what it reminded me of. I knew it was SOME video game though.
Think you meant 9/11
This feels like they heard the expression "give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day but set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life" and got completely the wrong message from it.
I see what you mean, here in most 1st world countries even as a homeless person you have your basic necessities covered, you aren’t dying of famine or forced to eat grass and mud for nutrients. As so the bread isn’t all that special in a place like South Korea, in North Korea however it would be a big deal because they do in fact eat grass for nutrients and NK currency is worthless.
I don't know if it's the same in Korea, but those scratch tickets also have smaller prices with much better odds and the smallest amount is worth more than the bread
Bread keeps the hunger away for maybe 1/2 a day, the lottery Ticket give a little chance to get out of the misery for a long time
This scene could also be interpreted as the Recruiter justifying his actions. A way of reaffirming people would rather take all or nothing risks than take safer smaller guarantees. In other words, people who get themselves killed in the games are not his fault. Then again, he’s just another crazy person.
You speak as if everyone that goes to those games doesn't have a choice. It's funny how you cattle are never responsible for your own choices isn't it?
The recruiter is picked for this purpose, my guess is from the pool of previous winners (sic).
He knows what the offer is, he also knows what the reward will do. People will die, and he is going to give them a choice they cannot, will not refuse. If they do, there's next year. And he's choosing people that he now sees himself as being above.
In an organisation of this size and clandestine purpose, there's probably a moral philosophy which underpins the games - protecting society or some cultish phenomena.
The Bread can be earned by other means and can only give a day's respite to hunger.
The lottery ticket with extremely low chance, can upturn the rest of your life.
And the fact that they go consistenly with the extremely low chance is why they are broke an hungry, thats the point. You build up very slowly, "a bread a time" and alot of people cant do that.
And if you're hungry enough, the bread being a little stomped on isn't going to stop you from eating it.
@@nicodives1974 Far too many people right now being broke and hungry without being their fault for me to agree.
Like Kalifornyanya.
But as a mindset. "A bread at a time" is good practice.
@@Aserbic Oh i agree is not always the case, thats why i said "alot of pleople". But the idea of the scene is pretty clear, its not about capitalism, is about the mindset of people consistenly making bad decisions and that being the reasson of their crappy situations. "We are the architects of our own hell".
@@Aserbicnot in America, maybe in some 3rd world country. Welfare kids are fat af
I would have taken the bread but that is from a personal commitment not to gamble. You are correct in your interpretation, I think.
You are the choice is an allegory for people being their own worst enemies with their greed.
Same, even with it being in hundreds of millions (or the fact I live like 2 blocks from a casino), I still choose not to gamble. Even if the ticket were to cost 50 cents and I could get hundreds of millions from such, I still wouldn't gamble.
Could you talk about the EU announcing they interfered with the Romanian election?
That shit. Wild.
They haven’t. It was a former MEP who said they had even tho he have no ability to know that as a former MEP
romanians have elections? i thought dracula was their president.
@@inteallsviktigt He wasn't an MEP, he was in commerce regulation and he was dealing in censorship. Yes, a man of this stature would have access to such info.
@@inteallsviktigt I wouldn't doubt they have given we have a war right at the border
As a person that never plays lotto, or gambles or anything, if I was in their place where I'm very poor, but still fed well enough to live, I'd probably choose the lotto as well. If the food were something more substantial like a big loaf of bread, or meat or whathaveyou, then I'd take a second guess, but as is eating the bread won't change anything, just give me a meal I would otherwise have to scrounge abit for.
He did the classic pigeon flips the table over at the end. If woke can't win, nobody can.
I think the scene was an allegory for consumerism or more specifically, South Korean consumerism.
Kinda like,
"Would you as a middle-class person buy the over-priced gucci bag in hope for more social-capital or would you save money and be prudent in your middle-class life?"
It was entertaining but way too simplistic really.
I can give a difficult choice to a lefty too.
"Would you stay in a capitalist system and work to slowly fix it within capitalism or would you risk revolution and mass murder then eventually become capitalist anyway(what happened with China and Russia)?"
Of course most artists tend to lean left so they more or less never ask the latter.
Ironically the homeless people are better off than the people picked for the games because at least the homeless people arent probably in thousands of dollars in debt lol
You do realize that debt is a big reason for homelessness right?
i really liked this scene, just because how mad he got
good criticism or not the scene (and the whole episode actually) is great
I would be way too suspicious of that bread, it may be poisoned or otherwise laced with something. I'm not eating something from a stranger on the street. Loto ticket on the other hand seems relatively harmless, maybe you get something maybe you don't.
There's been drug laced money left for people (like far more than the usual amounts you may find). The world is messed up. Imagine getting a fent overdose from picking up a $20 bill.
It was intended to be against capitalism like starship troopers was intended to be critical of imperialism.. and fails miserably at it.
If they take the bread they eat a little today. If they take the lottery ticket they have the chance, however slim, to eat for several days. If the lottery ticket is a loser they're no worse off than they already are.
Bums arent starving.
This scene was interesting to me, it made me consise it to be his verison of a mini game. Either you take the safety of eating for the day (the safety of not risking) or you gamble on your chances of being a winner and getting out in one swift action.
Been homeless before. People throw a lot of food away so finding food is pretty easy. But that ticket on the other hand though a bit harder to find and you didn't have to spend what little you had to get it
I wouldn't take either. My response would be, "Nothing is free."
If some guy in a suit is testing you like that, how can you trust him?
I love your answer
That scene had me rolling my eyes tbh. I don't actually know what the people were thinking when making it, but to me it reeks of the idea that the poor are bad people. I'm South Korean, and at least when I was younger, the population (and the media) had a problem of genuinely believing that poor people are bad, or inherently uncouth, etc. The entirety of Squid Game has a little bit of that air, though of course it also turns it upside down a little by showing that the rich are or can be just as bad... idk, it's hard to parse totally.
Well it seems like the creator of the show just barely got the memo that socialism is rising in America, so the whole TV show has been written and shot trying to pander to those ideals, but they are so genuinely shit at it they'll only manage to hinder their appeal.
What I'm trying to say is: the writers don't really care about socialism that's why all their "skating social commentary" falls flat.
Option A: Piece of bread that's about 2$ worth
Option B: A lotto ticket that's worth 0$ to 750k$
If you pick lotto and got nothing, you would be like "meh, whatever, i can literally beg or work for an hour and get that bread"
However, if you pick bread and learn that lotto had even like 10$, maan ngl i'd be a bit frustrated. And the frustration only gets amplified with higher prize money, i don't think a homeless man could even handle missing out on a 750k loss, that would absolutely wreck him lol
People can cry about capitalism all they want but at the end of the day no matter what is in place the strong will rise above the weak.
Well no, which is the issue with it. Those who start out with tons of cash can strangle any challenger trying to improve. And the system is vulnerable to an alliance-of-losers scheme as well. Among other issues.
@bc-cu4on no matter what system is in place that will happen. You can't bend nature's will without it snapping back. And no one starts out with tons of cash it was earned over generations. Because these people looked after their families not their own interests.
@bc-cu4on imagine thinking that it doesn't take hard work to maintain Wealth.
@@vespasianflavius2766 Bullshit. The only way to be rich besides inheritance is theft. Just because you're "only" descended from a criminal doesn't mean that your wealth wasn't stolen in the first place.
@bc-cu4on and it takes hard work to maintain and even add to your wealth rich or poor.
are they starving? Why take the bread, the lotto ticket makes infinitely more sense
How funny would that be though, if it were the winning ticket? That guy in the suit would be pissed.
Most of socialist critique, even the socialitst grifters' one, of capitalism comes of to me as some kind of critique of greed. The issue with their socialist critique isn't _what_ they are critiquing, but _how_ or _why._ Most "well-meaning" or good faith socialist are usually naive, too idealistic, don't fully understand what or why they are critiquing it or how to actually resolve their issues with the problem. And the socialist 'grifters', as many/any grifters, have a power-hungry or monetary greed problem of their own, so it's usually more out of jealousy that they _use_ socialist, or any other, critique.
That's kind of been my problem too. They'll say people are evil under capitalism because capitalism makes them that way but somehow many of those same people are just gonna be good because socialism happens? It reminds me of how I saw a video covering Thought Slime and how he basically said we could just put all of our resources in a warehouse and people can just come and take what we need.
I’m definitely not taking the bread. It could be poisoned. With the ticket it’s definitely just a ticket. These people are clearly not starving. If they were and they still chose the ticket than ya that’s a bad choice. These hobos are actually making a smart choice by taking the ticket. Even if they win the smallest amount which could be like 20 bucks they could then use that to buy something substantially better than just one bread roll. Good business sense doesn’t just equal greed.
This scene made no sense within the movie. He is the recruiter guy. Why does he do that? He is not recruiting anyone. Why does he step on the bread? Sure, THEY don't wanted it, but there are enough other people who would have liked it. Also, those are homeless people, they would still eat it, even if you stepped on it.
I wonder what he would have thought / said / done if some of the homless people had actually won the lottery.
Fair point, is not the most accurate, maybe offer the choise between $100 and the ticket, or a job and the ticket. But then we are nit picking, the idea is clear, its not about capitalism, is about making bad decisions. Homeless most of the time make a lifetime of bad decisions and take the easy path, never go with the "better bird in hand..." and all.
Good analysis Vee. "Homeless" people today are living their best lives. Most of them want to live like that.
I take the bread i eat today
I take the ticket, i COULD eat a while longer
The bread would be the rational option if i were starving
The funny thing, besides that this new scene is nothing compared to the card game in the original, this would have worked a lot better if you replaced bread with like a decent amount of money that could potentially make a change to the person's life if well spend, like a 5 of grands. So would you take a solid amount of money that could make a change in your life right away, or would you take the slim chance of winning soo much money that you'd be provided for your whole life.
Funnily enough my family( cousins love lottery tickets and the one I gave to one of them got him 100 usd and the remaining got some money. I mean a huge payout from a lottery isn’t likely but a small payout happens often enough and especially here a small loaf of bread vs let say a 15 usd winner which gets you a good burger and fries
Taking the lottery ticket over 25 cents of bread is objectively the correct decision (unless you're like a day away from dying of starvation, but even then the bread would only push that date by an hour or two at most. So the ticket is still better).
While lottery tickets are a net loss compared to their prices, that doesnt apply if you get it for free. On average you'd get significantly more money with the ticket than the couple cents the bread is worth
Remember: 99% of gambling addicts always quit right before they hit the jackpot. If you're one of those gambling addicts thinking about quitting, just remember to go for that one last turn first.
"Give the man a fish..."
I just thought of a better version of this if you choose the bread you get 3 square meals a day for the rest of your life if you chose the lotto there is a 1in 100chance that you can be the 1 to afford to give feed people 3 meals a day while living like a king .
Yeah it was a very bad argument , if instead was the 2 choices of giving them a Job or the lottery that would be much more interesting 🤔🤔
Lunch vs Lifetime.
Course no ones going for bread, you didn't even add any milk.
Roko's basilisk
sigh.
You could also very easily see this as a critique of socialism, in the sense of the buisness man's anger. The socialists *always* preach about how voters are stupid, how they vote against "their own interest" as they call it. Whether it be voting for the socialist. Working for the capitalist as a wage slave, or any other choices normal people make the socialist hates. His stomping on the bread is an expression of that anger at their choices. The socialist cannot accept that there are other legitimate interests than their own. All contrary interests / viewpoints to the socialist must be because people are uninformed or stupid, to the socialist. And it pisses them off to no end.
Bread it like extreme cheap like some bread can cost like a single dolar and i could probably buy a lot of bread with a beggers money
£ 1 GBP = ₩ 1798.0924 Korean won.
Well, I've got a loaf of bread in my home.
If I lost either, I would hardly have lost anything.
If I won either, I get a bun, or 1,000,000 dollars.
Not much to lose, but everything to gain, even if the chances are microscopic
It's not meant to be taken literally. supposed to be under the assumption that if they don't eat that bread they don't eat for a while.
@@vespasianflavius2766 Yes, otherwise known as a metaphor. Except as OP points out, it's a bad metaphor.
What you were in a forum?
😂
The author caving to the corruption of capitalism proves his initial assertion.
Capitalism is just as bad as communism.
What we need is a genuine Free Market.
😂 the strong will always rise above the weak.
Genuine free market will poison your food and pollute your rivers
Why would you go for the bread when the lotto ticket has a chance of giving same amount of bread or alot of bread sure there is also the chance of getting no bread or 1/4 a bread 1/2 a bread . Unless you are in dire need of the bread then you should choose the lotto . If you loose then you can do your normal scavenging to get your food . It would have been better to offer the bread in 1 hand or nothing in the other hand much like I would do to beggers offer them a meal at the closest food joint as I am not handing cash out so they can buy booze .
To me , it more speak of the homeless mentality.
They are still living on the edge and anything that guarantee to be not so close to the edge should be welcomed . Slowly building yourself back up , one step at a time.
But no. All these bottom feeders instead chose to gamble . and a gamble that pretty much guarenteed to result in nothing gained at all.
To see that so many people chose the chance at an easy way out ,instead of planning their way back to the top throught actually working would piss me off just as much. At that point , i would be more than convinced they 100% deserve their fate as homeless given their mentalities. It's probably that same mentality that brought them there to begin with.
Yes and No. They're homeless in a place that has a lot of sad stories, but also opportunities. Working hard doesn't necessarily bring rewards, and these people likely were workers once, retrenched, had accidents at work, offended a boss and were blacklisted, et al. The work ethic in Korea is massive, but so is the corruption and gentrification. The inflation between wealth and poverty is expanding, the poor can always get poorer, et al.
The bread and circuses 'gamble' exposes the direct lie - asia does not have a charity culture - instead they have a work ethic that is often manipulated by others using shame tactics and 'fitting in'. The Gamble is less risky than working for someone who won't pay you, or takes advantage of your work, etc. So they make that choice, over and over. Facing the chance of making it out of their rut/depression, or making it, then failing soon after, trying to reach too high. There's plenty of stories of lottery winners unable to save the money and splurging, unable to pay taxes and buying houses they can't afford, falling back into poverty within a year.
Land isn't cheap, prices go up constant due to gentrification. You can be pushed into circumstances that make you homeless with no safety net in asian coutries and forced into living off the land, or living off scraps, unable to travel outside of the city or unwilling to leave, etc.
It's not greed as much as it is gluttony vs moderation
Gluttony and greed are the same thing
the gender entity ruined this season, netflix always ruins anyrhing good
I would normally agree but not here.
You just didn't notice the gender carp in season 1, and season 2 finally hit your noticing threshold.
He made me mad when he voted to stay, so he can get more money for his non essential surgery. It was super selfish.
I want someone to remake this, and when he scratches off the ticket and it's a loss he simply shrugs and eats it instead.
I enjoyed Season 2 of Squid Game.
you need a testosterone shot
I did too but it was so stupid in many scenes nodbody thinks and the last plan was just ...
Me too. The voting showcased something important about humanity.
that bread is not food, it's poison. take the lotto ticket.
why is it poison
@@fatpotato190 the usual reason, it's highly processed and mostly sugar.
@@fatpotato190lots of sugar
it is not accurate in a way that Capitalism is not a lottery. It should be Bread or a contract for work.
Vee you're complaining that a crazy guy who's obsessed with games is doing something stupid.
This video was pointless.
Most of his videos are
Your channel is a place where every video is a true work of art. Thank you for your dedication and passion for creativity!💌🐟🎤
Bot
my end by ten wattpad
soba scam squid stall