Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’

nationalreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 238 posts

Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’

#101

Post by leot »

iudqnolq wrote: post #94

I don't understand how the national review writer could write this and not realize the documentary was unethical. Why is "carceral system" in scare quotes? By their own description the facility obviously meets the definition. Yes, it's impossible to know for sure to what extent and how the men might have been threatened. That doesn't mean you throw up your hands and say "whatever, I now have no moral obligations". >…

By your logic, any documentary that interviews prison inmates would be unethical.

Smaker asked ~150 inmates to participate, and only a tiny handful agreed.

Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’

#102

Post by adaml_623 »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #98
8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #28

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…

> This is all reminiscent of the 80s and 90s Christian right groups picketing outside of Rock and Roll concerts The PMRC was an absolutely bipartisan effort. Tipper Gore was a founding member, and probably the most prominent person amongst their leadership. Probably a good idea to try and project your biases onto history a little less.

It's very unclear what you're saying. Are you saying the Tipper Gore is/was right wing? Are you saying that censoring music isn't something from the right wing of the political spectrum?

Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’

#103

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

iudqnolq wrote: post #94

I don't understand how the national review writer could write this and not realize the documentary was unethical. Why is "carceral system" in scare quotes? By their own description the facility obviously meets the definition. Yes, it's impossible to know for sure to what extent and how the men might have been threatened. That doesn't mean you throw up your hands and say "whatever, I now have no moral obligations". >…

If you keep reading …

Smaker, who had already been cleared for contact, was in touch with three of the men throughout the months after Sundance. None of them ever brought up issues raised in the CAGE letter, and one even called recently to say — in a voicemail — that he missed her and wanted to know when she was coming back to Saudi Arabia for a visit.

Even on the face of it, a white woman in Saudi Arabia, probably isn’t running around a rehab centre without authorities knowing what she was up to.

Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’

#104

Post by nailer »

MarkMarine wrote: post #73
carabiner wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though with the dirtbag left now flirting with being "trad cath" and softening towards racial realism, it does seem like it's approach the intellectual fascism of the nazis.

This is incorrect in its facts and framing. I’m not going to get into a long political discussion, this doesn’t seem the place for it, but I would implore you to look further into this before you start throwing words like fascism and nazi around when you’re talking about people who basically want to give everyone free healthcare.

In the UK it’s the far left (Labour after it was taken over by Momentum) who’ve had major issues with antisemitism and ignored it for years until they were forced to take action. Thirty years ago it would have been the far right.

So yes.

Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’

#105

Post by ghusto »

I'm writing this as an Iranian immigrant, and feel compelled to say so because it is apparently and depressingly necessary in order to lend legitimacy to my statements (though I don't think it does).

The idea that a white American can't understand non-white non-American views, makes the same amount of sense the other way around. Both ways around need a great deal of research by the ones trying to understand, and I believe she's tried her best.

I'll go even further and say that she understands some things better than those in the culture she's covering, since she's an outside observer, giving her some objectivity that those inside can't have. I know I have this with the particular "white" culture I'm integrating into right now.

I will say that there are some things she'll find difficult to impossible to grasp -- and might not even realise she's missing -- but to say she's not even allowed to try belittles us as human beings. This exclusionary race mentality can go away.

Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’

#106

Post by nailer »

MarkMarine wrote: post #83
8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is national socialism antithetical to free universal healthcare?

[flagged]

The nazis admitted they were inspired by socialism, nazism specifically had elements of class warfare. “goldfish brain” isn’t much of a response.

Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’

#107

Post by AmericanChopper »

adaml_623 wrote: post #102
AmericanChopper wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is all reminiscent of the 80s and 90s Christian right groups picketing outside of Rock and Roll concerts The PMRC was an absolutely bipartisan effort. Tipper Gore was a founding member, and probably the most prominent person amongst their leadership. Probably a good idea to try and project your biases onto history a little less.

It's very unclear what you're saying. Are you saying the Tipper Gore is/was right wing? Are you saying that censoring music isn't something from the right wing of the political spectrum?

It’s very clear what I’m saying. The PMRC (which was the most influential music censorship lobby in the 80s and 90s) was a bipartisan organisation. To claim the music censorship initiatives of that period were right wing is simply to project one’s own biases onto history, and is trivially falsifiable.

Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’

#108

Post by goodpoint »

nailer wrote: post #106
MarkMarine wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The nazis admitted they were inspired by socialism, nazism specifically had elements of class warfare. “goldfish brain” isn’t much of a response.

This is provably false. The nazi imprisoned and even exterminated socialists and communists as soon as they could.

Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’

#109

Post by goodpoint »

seanhunter wrote: post #88

This framing of protest as "cancellation" in the context of supporting free speech is something I find perculiar. Surely protest is speech? If that is the case then if you support free speech you must logically support both the right to the original speech and the right of others to protest that speech. When people say that people signed a letter denouncing the documentary without seeing it that's a little bit wide o…

> if you support free speech you must logically support both the right to the original speech and the right of others to protest that speech

Nowadays the concept of "free speech" is developing a new meaning among some crowds:

"free speech for me but don't call me out if I say something socially unacceptable and hurtful"

Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’

#110

Post by bambax »

ShredKazoo wrote: post #65
lamontcg wrote: post #59

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…

I think you're missing the point. The point is not about who's a good guy and who's a bad guy, who's a victim or an oppressor; it's about honesty.

If you do an adversary investigation about the Sacklers, using public footage or even private conversations that you obtained without them participating in any way, then sure you don't have to care about what they think.

But if you do a documentary where you ask for your subjects' help, then you owe them something, and the least you can do is not exploit or spin their testimony to fit a specific point of view -- esp. a point of view they would discover after the fact. That's a betrayal.

(I don't know if that applies to the film in question, which I haven't seen.)

Post reply on HN