61–70 of 238 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two things can be true. The story is terrible and the publisher of the story is a part of the problem too.
How is the publisher part of the problem by pointing out a shameful injustice?
The Guardian pretty much contradicts the spin being offered here: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jul/29/jihad-rehab-for... Sounds like it isn't a "woke mob" coming after her, but the actual subjects of the film really feel like they're being taken advantage of, their perspectives are really distorted and they felt she was re-interrogating them. The idea that the film is being cancelled solely because the filmm…
“More than 230 filmmakers signed a letter denouncing the documentary. A majority had not seen it.” Just a reminder that the far ends of the political spectrum loop back and connect.
Is this from another article or did you change the quote? The article says "...signed by over 200 filmmakers, many of whom had never seen the film"
“More than 230 filmmakers signed a letter denouncing the documentary. A majority had not seen it.” Just a reminder that the far ends of the political spectrum loop back and connect.
Just a reminder that the horseshoe theory isn't fact.
The Guardian pretty much contradicts the spin being offered here: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jul/29/jihad-rehab-for... Sounds like it isn't a "woke mob" coming after her, but the actual subjects of the film really feel like they're being taken advantage of, their perspectives are really distorted and they felt she was re-interrogating them. The idea that the film is being cancelled solely because the filmm…
Suppose we did a film about the Sackler family https://www.hulu.com/series/the-crime-of-the-century-63a06ef... and the Sackler family says they don't like it -- they feel they were misrepresented, and claim they didn't consent to participation, despite having signed consent documents. Is that legitimate grounds to censor the film?
Some may feel that the Sackler situation is different. You might see the Sackler family as known "oppressors" and "bad guys". And you might see Guantánamo detainees as "victims of oppression" -- perhaps you even think they're "good guys".
I don't think this argument works -- it is exactly through documentaries such as this that we can form accurate opinions about who is a "good guy" or "bad guy"; who is the "oppressor" vs "victim of oppression". If we allow anyone claiming to be a "victim of oppression" to censor stuff that makes them look bad, that just serves to lock in our current views regarding who is a "victim of oppression" -- which means we won't be able to update those views as more evidence comes in, or as circumstances on the ground change.
If someone doesn't like a documentary that was made about them, they can do a point-by-point refutation. Censorship doesn't seem like a good solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is all reminiscent of the 80s and 90s Christian right groups picketing outside of Rock and Roll concerts demanding that Marilyn Manson be forbidden from playing in their town because of his corrupting influence on the youth, that his music was going to lead to real physical harm. Same with dungeons and dragons before that. Had any of them ever listened to that music? Ever played a D&D session? Nope. It's interes…
It predates Marilyn Mason by many years. Black Sabbath in the 70s and Ozzy Osbourne (solo) in the early 80s come to mind.
>In fact, Smaker’s film is nothing less than a nearly two-hour indictment of America’s deeply shameful experiment with unlawful imprisonment. Just absolutely wild to read this sentence in the National Review of all places.
“More than 230 filmmakers signed a letter denouncing the documentary. A majority had not seen it.” Just a reminder that the far ends of the political spectrum loop back and connect.
Just a reminder that the horseshoe theory isn't fact.
Is anyone aware of a Marxist view of 9/11 and the WOT?
The Guardian pretty much contradicts the spin being offered here: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jul/29/jihad-rehab-for... Sounds like it isn't a "woke mob" coming after her, but the actual subjects of the film really feel like they're being taken advantage of, their perspectives are really distorted and they felt she was re-interrogating them. The idea that the film is being cancelled solely because the filmm…
It doesn't seem obvious to me that we should happily censor a film because the subjects of the film don't like it. Suppose we did a film about the Sackler family https://www.hulu.com/series/the-crime-of-the-century-63a06ef... and the Sackler family says they don't like it -- they feel they were misrepresented, and claim they didn't consent to participation, despite having signed consent documents. Is that legitimate…
The flipside is also quite reasonable here. I don't need to watch a documentary in order to decide that people horribly abused in American prisons are victims, the facts are pretty clear on that. (A bad person can, also, for reference, be a victim simultaneously.)
As for whether a point-by-point refutation is the best and only remedy, that seems to require that the victim automatically have access to the resources necessary to air their refutation where viewers of the documentary will see it. Will the National Review bump an opinion column by a Republican senator in order to publish an opinion column by a Muslim detainee instead? "The remedy for speech is more speech" style defenses assume that everyone has equal access to speech and everyone's speech will be heard equally. Neither of those are true when we're talking about released films.
The world is in fact full of examples where victims are defamed in public and are not offered a real opportunity to refute it, in some cases in fact in the National Review, which published this piece. I think it's generally fine that things work that way, but you need to keep it in mind when making arguments of the sort.