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

151–160 of 238 posts

Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’

#151

Post by tayistay »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #80
dymk wrote: post #35

Good for her in the end, though. The National Review and NYT both wrote articles about her film. I'd not know about it had her film gotten cancelled.

A great encapsulation of how 'cancel culture' means absolutely nothing. This film was 'cancelled' and that's why it was written up in two publications with national audiences.

Please think more about this. The film is currently not being distributed. The crew was tracked down and threatened to disavow the film or not find further work.

That is absolutely cancel culture. That there is subsequent news coverage (still no easy way to watch the film!) doesn’t change that.

Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’

#152

Post by nailer »

dontlaugh wrote: post #119
nailer wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Momentum isn’t far left, the Communist Party of Britain is. Labour wasn’t taken over by Momentum, people that liked Corbyn joined Labour. And finally, antisemitism accusations were used cynically by the right of Labour for years, trying to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Have a look at the Labour Files at least. So not even a little.

> Momentum isn’t far left, the Communist Party of Britain is.

If you support terror groups - and I mean in the strictest sense, as in people that attack civilians - you're on the far edge of politics. Before you shout that Corbyn was 'reaching out' to terrorists by saying they're his friends, that punishing people that killed innocent people in Brighton was a show trial, or laying wreaths at their funerals: everyone involved in Northern Ireland or the Middle East peace processes claims that Corbyn, a Labour back bencher at the time, had nothing to do with either of the Northern Ireland or the Middle East peace process.

> People that liked Corbyn joined Labour

Because of a Momentum campaign that cynically exploited a brief moment allowing anyone to join the Labour party for 5 pounds.

> antisemitism accusations were used cynically by the right of Labour for years

And obviously the far left is still denying them even after the party's own investigation found they had substance.

Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’

#153

Post by tayistay »

faeriechangling wrote: post #15
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a quote from the NYT article: > But attacks would come from the left, not the right. Arab and Muslim filmmakers and their white supporters accused Ms. Smaker of Islamophobia and American propaganda. Some suggested her race was disqualifying, a white woman who presumed to tell the story of Arab men. > Sundance leaders reversed themselves and apologized. > Abigail Disney, a grandniece of Walt Disney, had been t…

Is the left wing not supposed to be racist? I've heard some interesting views from some old school union guys. I don't really think of racism as a strictly partisan thing, the biggest partisan divide is regarding who the mob is most likely to be racist towards.

Well the recent leaked LA city council tape should dispel any notions that left wing politicians aren’t racist. In fact the race-essentialism of the left is laid bare in that tape. “He’s with the blacks” etc.

Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’

#154

Post by tayistay »

dymk wrote: post #35

Good for her in the end, though. The National Review and NYT both wrote articles about her film. I'd not know about it had her film gotten cancelled.

I don’t think this is good for her in the end. Sure, she’s got a lot of media coverage, but what about her career as a documentary filmmaker? Surely the better outcome would be the film screened at Sundance.

Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’

#155

Post by mellosouls »

8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #28
subpixel wrote: post #22

“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…

Yes, McCarthyism and the censorship you highlight above were a poison of the right; modern cancel-culture is a poison of the left.

It is depressing how blind the left (my side!) are to it, you still see them denying it or - now that the mainstream has become aware of it and they are on the defensive - excusing it with nonsense about "accountability/call-out/consequence culture".

Shameful.

Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’

#156

Post by meany »

lamontcg wrote: post #74
ShredKazoo wrote: post #65

Earlier 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…

It isn't being censored. Private institutions like film festivals shouldn't be compelled to show it if they find that they agree more with the petition by the subjects of the film. Other institutions can show it if they like. That is just freedom of association.

Do you feel the same way when conservatives protest to remove childrens books on LGBTQ+ stories from childrens school reading lists? Essentially, the book is still available in other channels.

Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’

#157

Post by irsagent »

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…

In the Sam Harris podcast Making Sense the director clears up the claim made by the guardian. If you’re interested in getting a better factual grounding on this issue I would recommend listen to it. In addition, the NYT article shows many inaccurate steps like the guardians and others took when writing about a film they hadn’t seen and simply passed along the protested opinion of others who they themselves didn’t see the film.

Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’

#158

Post by MarkMarine »

nailer wrote: post #115
goodpoint wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’

#159

Post by lumost »

rayiner wrote: post #37

> 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.

Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’

#160

Post by stefantalpalaru »

anonair wrote: post #92
subpixel wrote: post #22

“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.

One doesn't need seeing the film to notice the racism in the title. The title could be "terrorist rehab", but it now looks like jihad is bad per se, while jihad for Muslims can mean anything from "struggle against self ego" to "defend country from invasion". All Muslim scholars denounce terrorism and yet she chose "jihad" in the title.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN