Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd heard the interview subjects were interviewed under false pretenses. Is this not the case?
Where did you hear that?
The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’
141–150 of 238 posts
Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 s…
>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. It sounds like you are saying that it's unethical to include interviews in a documentary unless the interviewee is on board with the message of the…
My reading of the Guardian article is that the men feel they were interviewed under false pretenses. If true, that begs the question of the ethics of filmmaker. It also highlights a concern that those rushing to defend the film are either okay with the subjects being lied to or aren't aware of the primary criticisms.
Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Well obviously if you're not an opioids peddler yourself how could you legitimately create a documentary about the Sackler family?
Meh. Watch Breaking Bad. Fiction has a great magic to transport you into the shoes of another.
Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 facts of the Sackler family's behavior are well known and do not need a documentary to reveal them, a documentary merely provides more depth and context so you can form your own picture of the complete person or the nuances of their behavior. It is pretty reasonable to decide that they are "bad guys" without ever watching a documentary about them. The flipside is also quite reasonable here. I don't need to watch…
I think it is worth distinguishing "conventional wisdom says X" and "the facts are clear that X". Bloodletting was standard medical practice for 100s of years. If you asked a doctor from 500 years ago whether bloodletting helped patients, they would probably say: "the facts are clear that bloodletting helps".
Just in the past few years we've seen some major examples of conventional wisdom being overturned. For example, very early in the COVID-19 pandemic, conventional wisdom was that wearing a mask wasn't helpful. Then the conventional wisdom was that wearing a mask should be obligatory. In 2016, the conventional wisdom was that Donald Trump couldn't win, and that didn't work out so well either.
The real world is often complicated enough that careful analysis is required to get to the bottom of an issue. If conventional wisdom doesn't derive from someone somewhere doing a careful analysis in some way shape or form, I consider it suspect -- akin to an uninvestigated urban legend.
To do a careful analysis you'll want to look at all the important facts, including new facts, and facts that are problematic for your current point of view. If people are suppressing the circulation of important facts by saying "we know these facts are harmful due to [conventional wisdom]", they're interfering with the very process by which conventional wisdom can be made accurate. It's like climbing to the top of a tree and chopping at the trunk below you.
The global war on terror is actually a great case study here. Right after the Sept 11 attacks, it was conventional wisdom that terrorism was a Big Deal, Something Had To Be Done, and people who asked inconvenient questions were Helping The Terrorists. If those inconvenient questions had seen the light of day instead of being suppressed, maybe conventional wisdom would've come more in line with a careful analysis which accounted for all the important considerations, and we could've conducted the "war on terror" in a more intelligent and humane way.
>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.
When it comes to speech suppression I think this is almost always an orthogonal issue. It seems clear in this case that the subjects of the documentary have a big platform -- big enough that they were able to get the film pulled from Sundance. If the film is a misrepresentation, they can use their platform to explain why, rather than using their platform to get it pulled. If Sundance is worried that festivalgoers won't hear their side of the story, they could let the subjects of the documentary send a video of themselves doing a rebuttal, and play that video as an addendum to the main film.
Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Quoted post unavailable.
>Nowadays, lineage isn’t something that matters much.
they call it "caste" in indian subcontinent and unlike what the indian hindu ideology is around their caste system, everyone assumes that islamic lineage taking is same as hindu caste division which is not it.
Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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. It sounds like you are saying that it's unethical to include interviews in a documentary unless the interviewee is on board with the message of the…
My reading of the Guardian article is that the men feel they were interviewed under false pretenses. If true, that begs the question of the ethics of filmmaker. It also highlights a concern that those rushing to defend the film are either okay with the subjects being lied to or aren't aware of the primary criticisms.
Could you quote specific passages of the Guardian article that support the idea that they were interviewed under false pretenses? I just skimmed it a second time and nothing is jumping out to me as support for that idea.
Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’
#147The 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…
When there’s an open letter signed by lots of people who are guaranteed to be woke (documentary filmmakers!!), few of which have actually seen the film, how is that not a woke mob?
Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t follow your logic- my statement was that that the nazis openly considered themselves socialists and class warfare was a huge part of nazi ideology. Your state that’s probably false - but then don’t prove either of those statements false. It’s entirely possible to fight between factions of the same side of politics.
Class warfare seems to be a standard part of far right ideology, from Trump crowd to European far right.
Trump isn't far right. If you think he is you likely have very little knowledge of politics.
Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’
#149Matt Yglesias’s new podcast “Bad Takes” did an episode about this, covering some of the meta-issues (as you might imagine).
https://www.grid.news/story/podcasts/2022/09/30/bad-takes-ep...
Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
It predates Marilyn Mason by many years. Black Sabbath in the 70s and Ozzy Osbourne (solo) in the early 80s come to mind.
Is there any metal album that you can play backward and it says "Praise Jesus, my lord and savior!" I wonder what the Christian groups would do with that?
I got ones you can play forward that are basically that.