161–170 of 238 posts
Quoted post unavailable.
How so? It was widely covered in the media here, including the aftermath.
There's nothing in the news about it anymore, no.. But that's because it's not news anymore. They can't keep going on about it
“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.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 be…
This comes close to denying that there can ever be an understanding between cultures at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It is just that we, Arabs, are a radically different culture that values stability and tradition. Something of the sort of “People should mind their own business”. Free speech undermines both. It’s a significant cultural difference that the west has no intent to respect, because they regard it as oppressive." This is an interesting remark that gave me some new insight into Arabic culture. That said, free speech wasn…
Free speech is necessity for democracy. Democracy is necessity for the movement of enlightenment and justice. Enlightenment and science based governance led to the technology revolution, medical understanding and productivity boost. Authorian societies will never be as productive productive and never be good source of innovation. If people wish to live according to tradition, conservatism and authorian rule it is ok,…
The UK used to be a massive colonial power that grabbed the world like it were an ice-cream cone, now they can barely respond to domestic crises. Yet they have become less authoritarian and conservative during the timeframe of their downfall. Currently, China has significant problems that could kill their future but they are currently demonstrating great innovation and scientific output. They have their own space station, are developing their own supply chains, have massive and ambitious infrastructure, TikTok is beating the Americans at their own game, and so on. Meanwhile, they have not seen a decrease in authoritarianism.
In fact, the current trend seems to illustrate that as economic growth stalls in the West, the population is turning to more authoritarian leaders. Perhaps our freedom was just a side-effect of fair weather, and we'll revert back once material conditions decrease?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Mohammed Al-Hamiri, one of the men featured in the film, told the Guardian that he wasn’t aware the film would be accessible internationally and only found out that it had been made available online after its showing at Sundance. “My life is already difficult but this film poses a serious threat to my life and that of my family,” said Al-Hamiri.
> *Another man said that he had explicitly told the film-maker that he did not want to be featured in the film but his wishes had been disregarded.* The film’s director Meg Smaker says that all the participants in the film signed consent documents and denied that the men expressed any fears in correspondence with her.
Personally, I am more or less ambivalent to the film currently as I've only heard about it due to the controversy and that Sam Harris covered it. Perhaps it's extremely meaningful and perhaps not, I haven't had time to process it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free speech is necessity for democracy. Democracy is necessity for the movement of enlightenment and justice. Enlightenment and science based governance led to the technology revolution, medical understanding and productivity boost. Authorian societies will never be as productive productive and never be good source of innovation. If people wish to live according to tradition, conservatism and authorian rule it is ok,…
We don't just have democracy vs. authoritarianism in a vaccuum, we have specific countries adopting specific ideologies with specific material starting conditions. The UK used to be a massive colonial power that grabbed the world like it were an ice-cream cone, now they can barely respond to domestic crises. Yet they have become less authoritarian and conservative during the timeframe of their downfall. Currently, Ch…
Is this true for the UK proper? (Not the colonies, including Ireland.) Britain used to be quite a "lean state" domestically, while now being famous for having a lot of onerous laws micromanaging everything.
"now they can barely respond to domestic crises"
Interestingly, that was the case in the colonial era as well. Domestic problems in the UK were harder to address than wars on foreign continents. The Irish question was particularly stubborn. In 1914, shortly before the outbreak of WWI, there was actually a real risk of a civil war in Northern Ireland.
The safest play is to create all art as metaphor, just as the writers of great Russian literature did. You can’t be too plain spoken because that opens you up to attack by the mob. Rather, hide your meaning and the censors won’t feel it necessary to ban.
The censors' safe play is also well known: Introduce mandatory "what did the author mean" classes in schools, where children write down the one true interpretation of a corpus of sanctioned texts from preferably >100 years ago, under dictation, for many years; until they are completely incapable of approaching a work of art to understand it for themselves. It's not 100% effective, but the remaining few percent end up…
Earlier 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.
Ridiculous. Like I said, goldfish brained thinking. If you read just a little bit and used some critical thinking, you could figure this out yourself but it sounds like you prefer to think what you currently think because it supports your current ideology.
> It was the first time that Smaker realized that her film might be controversial. “She hadn’t seen the film,” Smaker recalls, “but seemed unhappy that I — as a non-Muslim — was making a film about Muslims.” After she saw it, Chehab went on to write on the TRT World website: “The only perspective needed is the Muslim one. . . . When I, a practicing Muslim woman, say that this film is problematic, my voice should be s…
I will refrain from commenting on the specifics of this situation. But I’m curious if the logical fallacy of appealing to group authority is a new rhetorical tactic or simply an old one that we’ve leaned into. Nixon’s appeal to the silent majority a generation ago sounds quite similar.