Migrating from Facebook (plus a pre-2016-election debate)

For about a year now, I’ve been looking for an excuse to get out of Facebook; delete my account.  I haven’t really been using it to catch up with or communicate with friends I’ll likely never see again.  Been mostly using it just for news updates.  Well, considering how they’ve been biased about news posts, even going to far as to delete posts and accounts that are conservative leaning, acting like hypocrites, showing how fucking political and biased they are, I’ve just been waiting for the one thing to nudge me far enough to say, “Fuck it.”  Well, even though I kinda knew this to some extent, there’s the whole data collection thing that has exploded, news of them doing this with Obama and Trump, but trying to do it for Obama’s advantage more than for Trump (even though I find it questionable no matter who they’re doing it for).  So, fuck it.  My days on there are numbered, and it’ll likely only last for one more week.

But before I do that, I’m going to carry over a conversation I had in 2016 with a college history professor on Facebook, a professor of whom I was a student of many years ago.  That’s all I’ll say about it.  I won’t give any names, but some of you nosey fucks will likely track down the quotes and get the names anyway, and there isn’t much I can do about that.  Whatever.

This long-running rivalry/debate proved to be a turning point for me in my life, where my eyes got opened to just how ignorant people can be.  And it resulted in me becoming more political, which is something I hate being.  But the times call for such a thing, because times require the average person to have some knowledge in politics considering how desperate things are getting at times (depending on where you live).  The fact that society got to the point where Hillary Clinton was that close to getting elected says something.

So, here’s the debate (I am “Me”, the teacher is “Professor”, anyone else is Commenter #1, #2, #3, etc.; any reference to my real name will be replaced with “Anomalous Host”, and their names will be replaced accordingly).  Keep in mind I’m not as well-knowledged about these things then as I am now.  Keep in mind, I wished him a happy birthday in August 2016, prior to the rest of these posts.  Oh, and one other thing.  Going back to these older posts has just reinforced my decision to leave Facebook.  Why?  Because those motherfuckers took down some of the posts and comments made in this half-year-long discussion we’ve had, and some posts I know I made independent of the discussion that are now gone.  Mark Zuckerberg can go fuck himself, right up his pro-censorship dickhole:

 

August 8, 2016

Me:“Not voting is a vote for Trump!” or “Not voting is a vote for Hillary!”

Rubbish! Voting for neither, or not voting at all, is still a statement on what you want from the leaders of this country! You want to make a statement by not choosing either of the 2 evils, vote for an independent:

Don’t Throw Away Your Vote By Voting Trump or Hillary; TheAntiMedia.org

 

Up to this point, me and the professor got into a back-and-forth regarding Obama’s handling of ISIS.  Couldn’t locate those posts (because they got removed by Facebook), but what follows is all that remains.

 

August 13, 2016

Professor: Anomalous Host might note that this isn’t POTUS’ first rodeo.

I double-checked on this before I posted it.

BREAKING: President Obama Flips Trump The Bird As American Airstrike Kills ISIS Leader (DETAILS); BiPartisanReport.com

 

August 14, 2016

Me: Been doing some thinking since my debate with Professor. Regarding the state of the Middle East. He’s right in that we can’t really afford a full scale war. But at the same time, I don’t believe we can afford to stay completely out of it either. I think Obama has been forced into a compromise that could potentially lead to something that works, that can hopefully continue into the next presidency, whoever ends up winning.

America Can’t Do Much About ISIS; TheAtlantic.com

Professor: This is a well-written piece; I agree with several of the points.

 

August 17, 2016

Me: This Is What The War Against ISIS Really Looks Like; Buzzfeed.com

 

October 10, 2016

Professor: The word from the bird. ” Most guys respect women, some guys don’t, but never have I heard anyone use your particularly disgusting brand of sadism that refers to women as objects and not people. Even the most debauched club-hopping party animal talks about women more civilly than you.”

Dear Donald Trump: I played in the NFL. Here’s what we really talk about in the locker room.; Vox.com

 

October 11, 2016

Me: For those who don’t think election fraud isn’t a real thing:

 

Professor: Oh, no, Anomalous Host, I *do* think it isn’t a real thing.

Professor: So it’s casual convo on a hidden cam. The Exclusionary rule notwithstanding, where are the convictions, Anomalous Host? This is just him ranting about how bad “those people” are.

Me: Where are the convictions for Trump?

Professor: We’re talking about election fraud. Where are convictions?

Me: North Texas woman arrested for voter fraud; Star-Telegram.com

Professor: Got it.  Lightning Strikes more common in Texas than in-person voter fraud,; Politifact.com

Me: Has amnesty been as commonplace in the past as it has in the past 2 years?

Professor: The largest amnesty is Simpson-Mazzioli.  Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 – Wikipedia

Me: No large arrests either time huh? Because it doesn’t happen, or because it’s not enforced?  The Voter-ID Myth Crashes; NationalReview.com

Professor: Of course the National Review would accuse Dems of abetting voter fraud.

Me: Says the guy who uses Wikipedia as a source. Would the Washington Times be more satisfactory?  Obama amnesty creates loophole for illegal immigrants to register,; WashingtonTimes.com

Professor: We’re done here.

Me: Bye bye.

 

I mean seriously, a college history professor using wikipedia as a source?  Most of them (at least back when I was in college) wouldn’t wipe their ass with a report that used wikipedia as a source.

 

October 12, 2016

We cannot change society without changing our own behavior. If we want to change, we have to change. Imgur.com

 

October 15, 2016

Commenter #1: Wow. So, this was just for fun it wasnt supposed to mean anything. I certainly apologize that this post has offended you so much. While I believe in being open to people with different views politically, socially and religiously, I feel that such a tirade is unnecessary and unwarranted.

Commenter #2:Who tiraded? It was like 3 sentences. But seriously folks, this voter fraud bullshit from drumpf’s camp is baseless and dangerous and we have an obligation to shut it down.

Professor:The human blobby has ways to shut that kind of thing down.

Me: @Commenter #2 I wouldn’t say baseless. The whole stealing from Bernie nomination aside, George Soros is a Clinton donor after all, and he’s in charge of the voting machines in 16 major states.  George Soros-funded group serves as poll-watcher in 16 states; WashingtonTimes.com

Commenter #2:There’s so much glaringly, obviously, horribly wrong with drumpf that Clinton won’t have to commit fraud.

 

October 16, 2016

Me: This is disgraceful. No matter who you support, this shouldn’t happen to either side:

North Carolina GOP Office burned, graffiti sprayed nearbye; Yahoo.com

 

October 17, 2016

Me: I’m A Sexual Assault Victim Who Still Supports Trump; TheFederalist.com

 

October 17, 2016

Me: Devious, aren’t they? The more of this you watch, the more pissed you’re going to get. Remember that “69 year old woman with oxygen tank punched in face at Trump rally” story? Apparently, she was trained to birddog. So are others who are mentally ill and such, paid by the DNC (or a faction of it). Despicable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

 

October 24, 2016

CBS2 Investigation Uncovers Votes Being Cast From Grave Year After Year; LosAngeles.CBSLocal.com

 

I have vague recollections of some other conversations we had over Facebook between then and the next entry.  At some point, me and the professor talked about the pros and cons of the border wall, and more or less agreed to disagree, citing sources that showed how Israel built a wall that successfully kept out enemies in the past, while other countries like China and, I think, even Rome built walls and were less successful at keeping immigrants out.  Basically, for every source brought up that supported my side of the argument, the professor could bring up one that supported his side.  I think it’s situational and dependent on the situation as to whether or not border walls work (where the wall is located, if it’s during a time of war, the technology available, are there waterways, etc.).  Also got into a brief discussion regarding guns, and how some random cunt showed up to say something along the lines of how all men shouldn’t be allowed to have guns but all women should.

Also, I brought up some negative points on Hillary Clinton, we went back and forth on them, he didn’t read my links in details (and I don’t think he even read some of the links he brought up in detail either, since I read whatever he brought up, made a response to it, and he responded as if the post was pure unquestionable truth even though I brought up valid points that debunked it).  So I was getting a bit frustrated with him at this point, as he didn’t seem to be taking my anywhere near as seriously as I was taking him.

The below thread I initially posted in response to Professor continually bringing up the news of Trump allegedly raping a 13 year old in, I don’t know, around 1990 or something at some rich guy’s place during a party.  In some past post/thread, I made an argument on Bill Clinton’s sexual accusers, and the professor said it didn’t matter because he was never convicted or proven guilty of those crimes.  Keep that in mind.

 

November 5, 2016

Me: @Professor: Well, guess this is off the table.  Woman who accused Donald Trump of raping her at 13 drops lawsuit.; TheGuardian.com

Professor: OK

Professor: This leaves…..how many women who have made accusations?

Me: Less than the number that made accusations against both Bill and Hillary Clinton. As you have stated several times in their defense, just because someone makes an accusation doesn’t make the accusation true. There should be evidence. Or by your standards, a conviction.

Professor: The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet; TheAtlantic.com

Me: You know, the last time we got into a discussion like this, I made a similar post about Hillary, which you dismissed as a hack job and virtually ignored it. I’d like to know if you’re going to do the same here, and if not, why I should treat this post with anymore respect than how you’ve treated mine?

Professor: I remember the Clinton era and the continuous attacks on the Clintons. Essentially, it was this. Since the right did not have any substantive issues on which to attack Clinton, they assaulted his character. In case you don’t recall, the entire Clinton administration passed without one single indictment. Clinton did the US a great deal of good and had solid, decent policy ideas. Trump has nothing, and this is horribly disturbing. I sat through eight years of attacks on a decent man, Bill Clinton. I don’t regard these endless decades of attacks as anything but revenge by a Right that keeps losing and losing and losing, and which has no agenda save tax cuts for the rich, which have damaged this nation a great deal.

Me: I could say the same in this regard about Trump. Nothing substantive to attack him on, so they attack his character. As for nothing substantive with the Clintons, let me try this again. Many women have made allegations against Clinton some settled, some decided to become silent. It’s quite similar to the whole Trump debacle going on when it comes to the women of his past. In both cases, they’re nothing solid enough to be proven to be true, there’s only the word of the women. But then there’s something like this:

Professor: But as I said, Clinton had policies which concretely helped this country. Trump has none whatsoever and can’t explain any that he might have.

Me: I talked about how he does in an earlier discussion. Don’t you remember? How I believe his tax plan is better for the economy than Clinton’s?

Commenter #1: on a side note President Clinton was empeached by congress. that really happened.

Commenter #2: Bill Clinton was impeached by a Congress led by folks doing the same thing they were accusing him of doing. See Newt Gingrich. They spent $70 million or so tax dollars on this, which probably makes that the most expensive BJ on the planet. And the Republicans forced us to pay for it. Plus impeachment is the process of making a formal charge. It is not a conviction. As I recall, no conviction happened, right?

Professor: Anomalous Host, I read it. His tax plan is tax cuts for the rich- Reaganomics all over again. It did not work in the 80s. Doesn’t now.

Me: Glad you brought that up. Remember that site you posted in one of our past discussions that demonstrated how the economy supposedly did better under democratic leadership, though with no explanation as to why that is? I think Reaganomics and Bill Clinton are a perfect example for one of the reasons. It isn’t something that worked right away, true, because that’s the nature of trickle down economics. Eventually all of his Reganomics policies went into effect, and then Bill Clinton came into office to reap the benefits of it as the positives of the policy started coming to fruition. In other words, Democratic leaders piggy back off the economic policies of the Republican predecessors.

I’m interested in discussing more on that topic.

Me: Care to watch any of Clinton Cash? At least the part that talks about Haiti?

Commenter #2: Haiti was a disaster for all of the major charities. The Red Cross took in millions of dollars for Haiti, and built like 6 houses. The Clinton Foundation has supplied medicine, etc to vast swathes of humanity. I wouldn’t be at all surprised, however, if they suffered similar issues with aid to Haiti as the Red Cross did.

Professor: Anomalous Host, that makes no sense at all. Reaganomics only works for Democrats, who do the opposite of Reaganomics? Then why did the nations who used Keynesian principles recover from the Great Depression? While those who didn’t failed to recover? This is trolling.

Me: @Professor: I don’t see how that makes no sense considering this isn’t just some theory I made up. Look, here’s how my mind works. If someone brings up some point of view, some subject, some policy that I don’t agree with, I express why. If some evidence is brought up that supports their view, I research to see how strong that evidence is. If there’s something that seems to refute it, I bring it up. If I can’t find anything that refutes it, or if all other refutations seem too weak to consider, I relent and slowly come to accept that other policy/view/subject. Now prior to you bringing it up, I didn’t know that much about Reagonomics. So I looked it up, saw that there are people who agree and disagree on whether or not it was successful, focused mostly on the portions that state why it was successful, but also looked at some of the arguments which state why it was not. So after doing that looking, I made a response in a very simplified and generalized way that supports the theory that is held by supporters of Reaganomics that made sense to me. If there is a fault in that theory, believe me, I want to know about it, and I fully expected you to let me know about it so I can research it a little more. Because it’s conversations like this that encourage me to research and gain knowledge and know how to respond if I’m in a future debate like this with someone else, which may in turn influence how I see politics and thus influence how I vote in the future. I don’t call you a troll for bringing up points that I disagree with if they are points worth addressing. Keynesian economics is also something that I didn’t know anything about until I started looking it up for the past dozen minutes. So now I’m more aware of it, and aware of the arguments for and against it, like how the expenditures in WWII helped get us out of the depression because war expenditures are Keynesian in nature. But there’s also the fact that too much regulation on business can stifle business. Plus it makes one wonder why there isn’t more regulation on loans and credit since those have proven to be the main things that lead to a depression in the first place. And I wonder if Reagonomics is really THAT much different from Keynesian principles. I don’t know all the facts, and I don’t pretend to. The reason why I choose to get into conversations like this is to probe for information, to learn information, see if it sways me from one point of view to another. I don’t always choose to relegate my time to doing so. And I know you don’t either, since you don’t seem to read many, if any, of the links I bring up to other sites that support my position, even though I read each and every one of yours. But I can understand and respect that if you’re a busy man and don’t have the time to do that. But I find it disrespectful for you to not take my position seriously, not to take my arguments seriously, brush off several of them as hack jobs and trolling that should be ignored because they threaten to burst that protective titanium bubble you live in. And I find it very disrespectful for you to call me a troll when I am trying to have a conversation I can learn from. And I’m not going to continue having conversations like this with you if you continue to treat me with such disrespect.

Me: @Commenter #2: Hillary Clinton’s State Department would oversee the reconstruction effort in Haiti. Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills was responsible for the allocation of US tax dollars. Bill Clinton, appointed special envoy to Haiti for the UN, was named co-chair of the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission along with the Haiti prime minister. The Clintons had the interest of special donors in mind. Haitians were largely left out of the decision-making process in the IHRC. $124 million was used on project Caracol, was supposed to create 60,000 jobs and economic growth. This was done on the northern part of Haiti as opposed to the southern part where the damage was done from the 2010 earthquake/hurricane. Beneficiaries of this were Gap, Target, and Walmart, to name a few. Factory in Caracol was built, and the beneficiary companies profited off of it with the low-wage workers, and this left the rest of Haiti minimally affected. There’s more to add, but that’s a start. Is any of that false?

 

There were likely other posts, and I really wanted to find them and bring them over, but there are at least 2 threads made that had relatively good discussions in them that are lost forever (or at least kept hidden in the private Facebook database).  So because Facebook took those down, on top of the other bullshit it’s been doing over the past few years, I’m taking down my account a week from now.  Will this reduce my site coverage?  Probably, but I don’t really care right now.  Having my normal profile and my site page on Facebook isn’t helping its exposure all that much either.

Plus, honestly, social media isn’t all that healthy, and it can be addictive.  Well, on that note, onto Gab.ai, and Minds.com.

American Sniper review

This is an older post I made a couple years back on another site. Figured I’d bring it over here, and salvage what I could of conversations that I had in response to it. I say “salvage” because at least one of those whom I was arguing with no longer has an account on the site this post was made on, and so all his comments have been deleted. Well, at least the responses to his comments are there.

Rated: 3/5

So the first time I watched this movie, I thought it was a fairly entertaining modern warfare flick. Didn’t know anything about Chris Kyle himself. But after the film, as usual, I tend to read other reviews. And if I’m really interested, I look up more details on the movie itself. Well, first I heard about the fake baby scene(s), which I thought was hilarious. Then I heard about several people trashing on the film, and on Kyle himself. That angered me. But I can’t critique the critics without educating myself more on what they’re bitching about. They may know something I don’t. So I bought and read the novel this movie is adapted from. I finished it in a few days, and rewatched the movie. Here’s my thought on the film itself.

Did I think the movie could have been made better? Definitely. In my opinion, it didn’t do enough to capture the essence of what it was going for, in that Chris Kyle preferred serving his country and protecting his brothers in arms more than being with his family, and the struggles he made in and out of combat to give up being a SEAL and make an effort to readjust to civilian life. First off, the references in normal life compared to his time in combat, mainly when it came to the sound of the drill. Or him staring at a blank television. That was all good, when it came down to showing how difficult it is to pull yourself out of combat mode and figure out a way to relax. But the thing is, the film didn’t capture that obsession Kyle had with wanting to keep deploying effectively, mainly after the 4th deployment. Now, bear in mind I’m writing this with the knowledge from the novel in my head. Kyle still felt like he had more to do, that he still had a responsibility to his brothers in arms overseas, because the ultimate reason he kept fighting was to protect all of them. To better capture this, it would’ve been nice if Kyle never killed that sniper Mustafa (because, in reality, he not only didn’t kill him, but never encountered him in combat in any way, shape or form). Then he would’ve felt that he needed to go back to kill the guy to protect the troops. Pulling him away from that would have been much more effective at capturing that feeling he had of why he needed to keep going back.

I guess I mine as well as talk about how good of an adaptation the film is compared to the novel while I’m at it. It’s not a great adaptation. For the first 30 minutes it is. But after that, it adds in so much stuff that wasn’t in the novel and distorts so much historically that it becomes a movie less about Chris Kyle’s experiences and life and more about being a solid modern warfare thriller that Chris Kyle just so happens to be in. In the novel, Kyle mentions this Mustafa sniper, and says he never came across him, but he got taken out by other American snipers in some other location. In addition, Kyle never saw any guy who drilled people to death, literally, with a drill. Plus Kyle wasn’t really a sniper until his second deployment if I remember correctly. Those are the three major things the film changes, but there are a bunch of other historical elements that got distorted left and right.

With that said, I’m not angry about it. The novel is chock full of combat experiences that it would be impossible to capture even half of them in a single film. The only way Kyle’s story could be done justice is if it was made into a miniseries of at least six 1-hour episodes. So I enjoy the movie more as a modern warfare film than as a Chris Kyle film. But it does have plenty of little subtle dialogue exchanges and other elements (the Punisher skull symbol) that shows it is at least aware of these novelties. The action is good, the tension is great, and it gets a lot of elements right when it comes to the realism of modern warfare. How they fire the guns, how they do Direct Action (DA), among other things. But it’s not perfect, because it also got some things wrong. Not majorly wrong, but some points are questionable. The main one when it comes to mind is when Kyle seems to do a 12 hour overwatch. I seriously doubt that would happen. That’s why there are multiple snipers who do shift rotation. But if it did happen, that was one thing Kyle didn’t mention in his book. I’m not a combat vet, I’m just speaking from what I’ve read.

And the CGI wasn’t that great. And baby doll.

Overall, despite those issues, I was still entertained by the film. It generally (and I’m talking a wide margin of error here, don’t go expecting accurate nitty gritty details) gets Kyle’s story right in terms of how he was raised, his obsession with serving his country and military buds, the stress of war, and re-adjusting to civilian life. Again, it’s better as a modern warfare flick that focuses on a single central character than a Chris Kyle flick, and I can watch it with that in mind. Could’ve been better, but it also could have been much worse, especially if Spielberg directed it. There, I said it. If you thought Eastwood’s vision was historically inaccurate, you should look more into what Spielberg would’ve done with it. It’s just speculation though, and I could be wrong.

 

**********************************************************

Alright. My “Critiquing the Critics” reviews are never made unless I read something by someone about a movie I like that got under my skin. Some of these fuckers (who I hope read this) got so far under it that I was driven to shell out money for the book, get myself to read the entire thing in a short amount of time, and shell out more money to get another ticket (though to be fair, I used a gift card the 2nd time around and I would love to see this movie overtake The Hunger Games at the box office). So here’s to you, you soft skinned peace and love cherry virgin hypocritical cunts.

Peter Maas from The Intercept:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/08/clint-eastwood-ignores-history-american-sniper/

The problem is that the film makes no attempt to tell us anything beyond Kyle’s limited comprehension of what was happening. More than a decade after America invaded and occupied Iraq, and long after we realized the war’s false pretense and its horrific toll, we deserve better. There’s a dilemma at work: a war movie that is true of one American’s experience can be utterly false to the experience of millions of Iraqis and to the historical record. Further, it’s no act of patriotism to celebrate, without context or discussion, a grunt’s view that the people killed in Iraq were animals deserving their six-feet-under fate.
[…]
If Cooper, the film’s star, means what he said about its lack of politics, he fails to understand how war movies operate in popular culture. When a film venerates an American sniper but portrays as sub-human the Iraqis whose country we were occupying—the film has one Iraqi who seems sympathetic but turns out to be hiding a cache of insurgent weapons—it conveys a political message that is flat wrong. Among other things, it ignores and dishonors the scores of thousands of Iraqis who fought alongside American forces and the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who were killed or injured in the crossfire.

Despite the fact that I said the film isn’t completely accurate at making an account of Kyle’s experience during his deployments, it is still a film that tries to tell his story from his point of view, and only his point of view. So why the demand to show both sides of the war?

Well it’s simple really. People have come to realize that politicians put soldiers in Iraq for reasons that aren’t completely justifiable to say the least (oil, rebuilding the nation as one of democracy, WMDs [which did end up being BS], response to 9/11 (though there wasn’t a clear connection), finishing what was started in the Gulf War, support in congress and by 70% of Americans). So it’s a sort of “American guilt” reason (especially with that last reason in parenthesis) that the, um, “insurgents” should also be seen as sympathetic, so that the American military isn’t glorified. While I do agree that films should be made that address those issues, a film like this shouldn’t be one of them. Is it really so wrong to make a film from a lone individual’s perspective, whether it’s on the moral high or low ground? I think not. How many would bitch about a movie that was made from a suicide bomber’s perspective (which has been done before)? How about from an insurgent’s perspective? Would that make people feel better? Would that wash away this American guilt complex people tend to have? Nope, it would still be there.

Hell, I can even give a half-assed example on building an argument against a film that glorifies American soldiers too much. Inglorious Basterds. What about the German’s? Surely not all Germans/Nazis are evil, and the film doesn’t do much to give their side the screen time it deserves? Fuck the American soldiers who killed all those Germans in the bar who weren’t hurting anybody and just wanted to have a good time.

See what I mean? Of course, that’s a bullshit argument because most Nazi’s were bad people because of their views on Jews, among other things, and Americans were perfectly justified in going to war against them. But on the other hand, you could argue that the political regime and poor economy/government bred people to be that way who could have turned out much different under different circumstances and under more ethical leadership. Even so, they were doing bad things to good people, and so the American’s got involved. You could argue that politicians made U.S. troops get involved in a war they probably shouldn’t have been involved in, or that the personnel are too bloodthirsty to be justified in their killing. But regardless, in general, they were killing people who deserved to be killed. Why were the Basterds in Germany? To kill Nazis. Why? Because they kill a lot of Jews and innocent civilians who wished no harm on them, which last I checked in morally wrong, even if Jews are annoying people. Are the Nazi’s generally bad people? Pretty much.

So back to American Sniper and Chris Kyle. Why was he in Iraq? Because he felt a duty to protect his country from the people who threaten it, primarily people like those who hijacked those planes on 9/11. Was he doing the right thing while he was in the Middle East? In his mind he was, though he originally wanted to fight against those who were responsible for the twin towers rather than go after those in Iraq. Was he right in killing the insurgents? I’d say the better question is was he wrong in killing the insurgents? Were the insurgents generally bad people? I myself haven’t exactly researched every single historical detail as to why American’s were doing anything other than going after Osama Bin Laden, so I can’t be positive about that. But when it comes down to Chris Kyle’s actions, governmental politics aside, I believe they were justified. Not just because he was protecting other American troops, but because he saw evidence that the insurgents he was killing were bad people, and that they had a fucked up belief system. Here are some quotes from the book American Sniper:

“The people we were fighting in Iraq, after Saddam’s army fled or was defeated, were fanatics. They hated us because we weren’t Muslim. They wanted to kill us, even though we had just booted out their dictator, because we practiced a different religion than they did.”

“The fanatics we fought valued nothing but their twisted interpretation of religion. And half the time they just claimed they valued their religion — most didn’t even pray. Quite a number were drugged up so they could fight us.”

“I have a tape somewhere showing a father and a girl in a house that was being searched. They were downstairs; for some reason, a flash-bang went off upstairs. On the video, the father hides behind the girl, afraid that he’s going to be killed and ready to sacrifice his daughter.”

“They were cowards, who not only would hide behind women and children, but probably hoped we’d kill the women and children, since in their minds it helped their cause by making us look bad.”

“The place [Ramadi] was a mess. There was no functioning government, and it was beyond lawless. Foreigners entering the city were instant targets for killing or kidnapping, even if they were in armored convoys. But the place was a worse hell for ordinary Iraqis. Reports have estimated that there were more than twenty insurgent attacks against Iraqis every day. The easiest way to be killed in the city was to join the police force. Meanwhile, corruption was rife.”

“I realize that a lot of the problem has to do with the screwed-up culture in Iraq. These people had been under a dictatorship for all their lives. Iraq as a country meant nothing to them, or at least nothing good. Most were happy to be rid of Saddam Hussein, very happy to be free people, but they didn’t understand what that really meant — the other things that come with being free.”

“The situation and plan were a lot more complicated than I can sum up. But to us on the ground, all of this was irrelevant. We didn’t give a damn about the nuances. What we saw, what we knew, was that many people wanted to kill us. And we fought back.”

So it can be argued that the film didn’t show enough of this so that the audience could better understand Kyle’s feelings towards the fanatical insurgents in general. But if the movie did do that, I’d imagine the people who are already pissed off at the movie would be even more pissed off, even though this stuff actually happened.

Sure Kyle may have been involved in warfare in a country that may not be perfectly justified for U.S. involvement. But from his point of view, he was doing the right thing. He was killing the insurgents to protect his other men, and because he was following orders. He was killing people who were trying to kill American troops, people who did despicable things. I don’t see anything wrong with that. Whether or not American troops should have been there in the first place, that’s an entirely different matter, something that is beyond the scope of the movie and beyond the scope of the book. Take those Vietnam war films like Platoon. It focused more on the soldiers and their stories and developments rather than on the war as a whole. Same deal with We Were Soldiers (though it did show the opposing side’s view from time to time); it was more about the battle rather than if they were in the war for all the right/wrong reasons. The difference between those movies and American Sniper is that those two movies are obvious enough about their anti-war message that just about everyone will get it when they see them. I personally believe people are hot about this movie not just because of there being a lack of anti-war messages in the film (which in this day and age many have come to expect), but also because the issue of U.S. involvement in the Middle East is still a hot topic. And that, in my opinion, is being unfair with what this movie is trying to be.

Ayden:
http://letterboxd.com/ayden/film/american-sniper/
I’ve never seen a movie that glorifies violence quite like this. It’s brutal, unrelenting, jingoistic and simply poor storytelling.

Movies like this are dangerous. If you think ISIS and North Korea are the only ones capable of making propaganda, you better think again. This is American propaganda at its finest; slick, palatable and pompous.

And to the people who say Chris Kyle is a hero; hiding on a rooftop and shooting people (innocent or otherwise) in the back of the head does not make you a hero.

I won’t argue about poor storytelling, because there are some good arguments on why that is the case. But glorifying violence and propaganda, that’s another matter. First of all, when it comes to sniper shots, the majority of them are to the body, not the head. Second of all, Kyle never viewed himself as a hero, and never claimed to be a hero. Third of all, insurgents had snipers too. Fourth, how does the film glorify violence exactly? I doubt it was doing it when the kid was getting drilled or when we saw Kyle’s friend in the hospital, so I’m assuming you mean when insurgents were getting shot. I noticed, Ayden, that you rate Inglorious Basterds pretty high. Hypocrite. That film can be argued to glorify violence just as easily as American Sniper. What’s the difference, that Iraqi insurgents should be viewed with more sympathy than Nazis? No, that doesn’t cut it. And fifth, propaganda. Considering how it shows that Kyle was a bit fucked up when he was at home away from the war, and that friends get killed in war, I seriously doubt that. The movie doesn’t do enough to make the army seem like a great time to be propaganda. If I’m missing something, what is it? If this isn’t a good counter to your statement, tell me why not.

Egg MacGuffin:
http://letterboxd.com/followtheblind/film/american-sniper/
Only Americans could venerate the leader of a murderous death squad rampaging through a foreign land uninvited with the express purpose of executing fellow human beings and who has no other noteworthy accomplishments to his name, nor any higher aspirations than military service.

No other noteworthy accomplishments. Not even the Heroes Project?

Willaim Tell (comment in Auteur’s review):
http://letterboxd.com/auteur/film/american-sniper/#comment-1100992
American Sniper portrays the war solely from the American perspective, actually leaving all political or social reasons completely out of the picture, and paints Kyle’s personality as a hero, without questioning his ethics, morals or considerations. It exalts militarism, state violence and racial self-glorification, without once exploring any worthwhile aspects of wartime. It does not “stick to facts and events” and it does not avoid “subjective opinions”, although it is made to seem so. An absolutely horrific movie.

What’s the point of showing Kyle’s actions if there is no light upon his own beliefs or intentions or convictions, his opinions on political events and attacks?!

According to his book, he proudly believed that killing Iraqis was a good thing, apparently he even wished to have killed more or “all” of them, and that that gave him pleasure. In the end, I think Kyle was a racist, violent man, and so the film, for not portraying him as such, ends up condoning his actions and beliefs. That is why I consider the film racist and filled with hatred. There is a pleasure portrayed for killing all those people, there isn’t a single redeeming factor about the Iraqis, they are not seen as people, they are written off to seem like soulless, bloodless villains in the film.

It’s from Kyle’s perspective. Saying it’s from “American” perspective is over-generalizing it too much. “American soldier’s” perspective would be more accurate. That aside, have you ever heard of thinking for yourself? That fact that this movie has people that like it for the reasons Auteur does, and hate it for the reasons you do, indicates that the movie doesn’t necessarily need to voice an opinion. It tells the story from Kyle’s point of view, and in his mind, he was right in just about everything he did. You can agree or disagree that it glorifies the military either way. And lastly, at some point, you kinda have to take for granted that people getting killed on the screen are not soulless people. You know, like the Vietnamese in Platoon and Full Metal Jacket, or the Germans in Saving Private Ryan. I would assume people take for granted that everyone has a life, a soul, and something good in them. This isn’t a movie that’s meant to explore both sides of the war, or even one side of the war. It’s meant to explore one man’s journey and view of the war. You think that’s wrong because it glorifies all the killing he does. And to that I say it doesn’t glorify it anymore than the average action flick. I don’t see you or the average person saying the average action flick make killing seem pleasurable. The question is does this film make the killings done in this movie pleasurable to the average moviegoer, or does it only do that for the sick fucks (let’s face it, there are always people like that around). I say it only does so for the latter.

And on a final note, do I think this movie should have won best picture at the Oscars? Fuck no. This movie isn’t made well enough to even be considered for an Oscar. And for the record, I don’t watch the Oscars, I haven’t done so for a long time, because the people who are responsible for nominating films are dumb people who have shitty tastes in movies. And it’s politics.

P.S.: That fake baby is hilarious.

———————————————————————–

The following are responses I’ve made towards those who commented on my old review.  Just my responses to the comments, not the original comments, because those got deleted because the accounts of those who made the comments got deleted.

@Ayden
I’m not so sure about Kyle referring to himself as a hero. He knew others saw him that way, and he thought he helped his country, but he didn’t see himself any better than the soldiers he served with.

When he said “savages,” he was always referring to the Iraqis he killed and not necessarily all of Iraq in general. And by Iraqis he killed, he means the insurgent fanatics whom he described in the quotes from the book I gave in the review.

Ok, let’s get something clear here. Unless I find some source material that someone provides, I’m not going to believe for one second that he killed any civilians. And by civilians, I’m talking about people who stayed out of the fights, and weren’t going to kill any Americans. In other words, people who weren’t in the ROE (rules of engagement) guidelines. You show me something legit that claims otherwise, than you have grounds to bring that up. Otherwise, you’re just full of shit.

But you are right about one thing. He was content in slaying those he did kill. That’s true, and he makes no apologies for it. And he did say he enjoyed killing them. But lets face it, all soldiers from every country have to enjoy killing to some extent. Otherwise, they’re no good at their job. A soldier’s job is to follow orders that may involve the killing of a dangerous individual. If you have a problem with Kyle doing it, then you have a problem with all of them doing it. Don’t just single him out in this ethical debate, you need to go all out on the ethics and morality of killing.

The film glorifies violence does it? Tell you what, you tell me exactly, down to the nitty gritty specifics, exactly which scenes derive that thought process from you, how that thought process of yours works that makes you come to that conclusion. Seriously, I would like to know. Because I can tell you that me, personally, I didn’t feel the film was glorifying violence at all, no more than the average war film from any country. Or any action film for that matter.

Now this is where the topic of glorifying violence gets really interesting. You say Inglorious Basterds doesn’t glorify, but has fun with the violence. I can buy that. But what I don’t buy is that it didn’t have contempt for the subjects of the violence. Are you seriously telling me that the film had no contempt whatsoever for Hitler and the Nazis? Here’s my thought process on the matter. The film shows a scene with a guy beating a Nazi’s brains out with a baseball bat while he cheers, and is cheered on by his companions. And this is also encouraging the audience watching the movie to do the same. Why? Because it’s fun to see Nazis beaten to death, because they deserve no sympathy, because they are as 1-dimensionally evil as human beings can get (at least I believe the film makes this assumption, despite an instance with the movie star). Now, I don’t believe that the film is encouraging audience members to go out and find bald white guys with swastikas tattooed on their ass and go and shoot them down or beat them to death, because as you said, it was all in good fun. But not once did I feel like cheering when the insurgents were getting offed in American Sniper. Were people in the audience cheering when the woman and child were shot? If there were, I wasn’t one of them. I wasn’t even cheering when Mustafa got offed. I’ve seen movies with death scenes that I cheered at, where I disliked the characters enough that I was glad to see them offed. American Sniper isn’t one of those movies, not for me. While as in Inglorious Basterds, cheers are encouraged when Hitler is getting mowed down and when that guy is getting “branded” at the end of the film. Did they deserve to get cheered as they got punished? Most would think so. And make no mistake, violence was absolutely necessary in Inglorious Basterds.

The main character that was deserving of such malice and contempt was the guy with the drill, and he wasn’t exactly killed in what I would call a cheer-worthy fashion. If glorifying violence means that the movie is supposed to imply that killing these types of people is a good thing to do, then I would say that is true only so far as killing other people who are a legitimate threat to you and your friends. That’s as far as it goes. As for just killing Iraqis in general, those who aren’t insurgents, then I would say absolutely not. On the other hand, I suppose you could make the argument that the movie is supposed to convey the idea that every Iraqi is an insurgent, but I find that to be complete and utter bullshit.

Yes, the movie does regard him as a hero. That I won’t argue with. I understand you have a problem with viewing this guy as a hero, but I guess that’s just going to be a subjective thing.

“The enemies we were fighting were savages and well-armed.”
When I read the book, every time Chris Kyle said the word “savages”, it was always associated with the people he killed (he said all the people he shot were savages I believe). Not once did I ever see him generalize the term that far, not once. But even better, he says in an interview with O’Reilly (I don’t like that guy, but still) that the enemies he killed, and only those specifically, are savages, not Iraqis in general:

Nothing subjective about that, unless you think he’s lying, but then that would be speculation on your part unless you can cite a source that says otherwise.

“I do have a problem with Kyle’s murderous and brutally vindictive ideology, and I do have a problem with any soldier who shares this attitude with him. Like I said, I don’t care how loyal you are to your country; if you get into war and kill people without any disregard, “I don’t choose the wars, I just do what I’m told” is a pitiful argument, and doesn’t justify murder or warfare in any way, shape or form.”

But he wasn’t killing people with disregard. He had to follow the rules of engagement, and write up reports on each target he killed. And I need to be clear on this before I make another response. What exactly do you think his ideology is?

“I’m not trying to argue that the violence in this film was in any way trying to be entertaining or make you cheer in your seat. It glorifies violence against the enemy (and warfare in general) by the way it imposes that the Iraqis are the only people capable of committing heinous acts. That they are the only bad guys, and that all American soldiers are holier-than-thou. The violence was supposed to be brutal and hard to watch, but it nonetheless implies an attitude that says: “Look at what these evil Iraqis did! See how us good American soldiers are here to liberate you and set you free? We can do no wrong!” And this attitude is the source of the American Sniper’s propaganda.”

Well then, let me provide a newsflash for you. Chris Kyle only saw Iraqis committing heinous acts. In his novel, he never claimed to have seen Americans doing heinous acts. Therefore, putting them in the movie wouldn’t exactly be accurate to his experiences in Iraq, and would be lies. Now, as for American soldiers committing heinous acts elsewhere in the Middle East during that time period, I have no doubt that that did happen. Hell, they even made movies that cover those events (Redacted). God forbid a movie gets made that doesn’t show soldiers in a negative light. Because newsflash, not all soldiers are despicable people, unless you consider killing the enemy a despicable thing. And sometimes the violence isn’t hard to watch, mainly because we’ve pretty much been desensitized to violence in movies since the 70s. I really don’t see how this film can be considered to be a glorification of violence when it’s no worse than a lot of other films with guns and shooting that have been made during the past 4 decades.

Here’s why I think you’re full of shit. Because I think you’re just assuming Chris Kyle killed civilians. I don’t think you heard that he killed civilians from a legitimate source. I know I haven’t. So where does this bullshit of him killing civilians come from exactly, from an assumption, or from something better than that? If we’re going by that logic, why not assume he’s a rapist and a pedophile and a guy who hates peanut butter while we’re at it? It must be true, because there has to be something fucked up about a famous soldier other than the fact that he just did his job. Arguments don’t hold up under motherfucking assumptions!

But you do need proof to know that he was killing civilians, which is something you claimed, which was an assumption, because you have no proof to support that claim, which means you made an assumption.

Newsflash, soldiers can’t afford to have regard for human life when it comes to shooting the enemy. They can’t. This doesn’t just apply to Chris Kyle, but to all soldiers. And I can also guarantee you that there are a lot of soldiers out there who enjoy killing, both enemy and American. Read enough war biographies, and you will find it to be true. Does this mean all soldiers are psychopaths?

Psychopath: a person with a psychopathic personality, which manifests as amoral and antisocial behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn from experience, etc.
Source: dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychopath

Kyle was able to love, he had a wife, and he cared for his fellow soldiers. And he learned from his experiences.

But I doubt you’re going for the accurate definition of psychopath and are more going for, “Because he enjoyed killing, he’s a bad person,” line of thinking. Which brings me back to my previous statement, are most soldiers bad people if most of them enjoy killing? I would say no. Is Chris Kyle a bad person? The main reason this question is asked is because he just so happened to have more kills than anyone else, and that reason is linked with his supposed attitude and personality, that he’s an out of control psycho who loves killing anyone and everyone, which just isn’t true. There’s only one reason why he got so many kills, and that reason is luck. He got put in several positions where the opportunity for killing the enemy was rife, and plenty of them showed up where he could see them compared to where other soldiers were at. And just about all of his kills are documented, with witness testimony, that he was killing valid targets that fell within the ROE.

As for his attitude. Well for one thing, the movie doesn’t portray him in the light you’re indicating, so that’s going outside the box. That aside, a soldier enjoying killing the enemy isn’t enough to convince me that the soldier is a maniac, especially when he has seen that some enemy individuals are morally reprehensible people. I would consider “loving his job a little too much” to be enjoying killing anyone other than the enemy, or becoming addicted to killing others whether they love it or hate it; which is an issue he didn’t have as far as I know.

Don’t get me wrong, war is bad, killing is bad, and humanity should learn how to live without doing so. But that’s not the world we’re in. Violence exists, killing exists, and people kill for various reasons. Because violence exists, people exist who know how to deal with violence. And make no mistake, violence solves problems. There is no alternative to dealing with fanatics who kill to get what they want. To deal with dealing death, soldiers have to learn to cope with killing others. Thus many become fine with it, and/or enjoy doing it, some because they taught themselves to enjoy it after a while, others because they enjoyed it from the get-go. I’m not sure which of those categories Chris Kyle falls in, but when it comes to warfare, I don’t see it as a morally reprehensible thing to enjoy killing others who are trying to kill you or your team mates. Even civilians can agree with this line of thinking. Take Mrs. Kyle for example:

As far as I can see it, anyone who has a problem with what guys do over there is incapable of empathy. People want America to have a certain image when we fight. Yes, I would guess if someone were shooting at them and they had to hold their family members while they bled out against an enemy who hid behind their children, played dead only to throw a grenade as they got closer, and who had no qualms about sending their toddlers to die from a grenade from which they personally pulled the pin — they would be less concerned with playing nicely.

I have a good question. Do you think the Iraqi insurgents were maniacs?

 

 

I also got in a discussion on another person’s account, one who goes by the name Egg MacGuffin:

MacGuffin wrote:
No other noteworthy accomplishments. Not even the Heroes Project?

Was that in the movie? If it was, they certainly didn’t make a big deal out of it. And it definitely wasn’t the reason the guy was being called “hero” and “legend”. He was given those monikers because he was the best murderer.

Me:
I just assumed you were talking about the man in general, not just how he’s depicted in the movie. In that case, yeah, he’s just considered a hero because of the number of insurgents he killed. He doesn’t consider himself a hero, but the movie does. If you don’t think that qualifies a soldier to be a hero, even though killing insurgents also saved lives, then fine.

MacGuffin:

I cannot comment on the movie by speaking of events outside of what the movie presents. The movie IS the presentation, and the movie goes pretty far out of its way to venerate the best murderer specifically because he killed a lot of “enemies”, and not because he was a good person otherwise.

Maybe the movie is trying to say that killing *doesn’t* make one a hero or a legend, being that Chris Kyle as a person never factored into the titles of acclaim he received; it was solely about the murdering, but because the country and society are so fucked up, people believe such blatant propaganda when the mainstream media feeds it to them. War is bad, but we HAVE to be there. Killing enemies is good. Those guys are bad. Be afraid. Etc.

Or maybe the film-makers truly believe that being the best at murdering the people we’re told are the bad guys is worthy of such reverence – which is just plain scummy and terrible.

Not sure I see Mr. Eastwood as a subversive pacifist, but regardless of the intent, the message most people receive is that this guy was a hero because he was awesome at murdering, and that’s far worse than plain scummy and terrible.

Me:

I think the message the movie is trying to get across is that Kyle should be regarded as a hero because he killed so many people to save his own. That was his reasoning. In the movie, he never took pride in the people who murdered, that was just him doing his duty. He only really showed emotion when it came to the veterans getting killed, or when he really didn’t want to take that shot against the kid with the RPG.

He didn’t view himself as a hero, but I agree that the movie says he should be. Whether or not we should view him as a hero, that’s a subjective opinion for the viewer.

but because the country and society are so fucked up, people believe such blatant propaganda when the mainstream media feeds it to them

Or when you hear about testimony from the soldiers. That’s an out of the box statement you’re making, which demands an out of the box answer. My review response link I gave above goes into that more than I will in this post.

the message most people receive is that this guy was a hero because he was awesome at murdering, and that’s far worse than plain scummy and terrible.

Or that’s the message the people who hate this movie for the reasons you give (and other reasons brought up in my response review) take away from it. Like I said, it’s so much the killing as to his motivations as to why he did his killing. And stop with the term “murdering”. That’s a bullshit term to give to a soldier.

murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
source: google.com

Soldiers killing insurgents and those who are a threat to other soldiers/civilians is not murder, that’s killing. You want to bitch about Kyle, you call it how it is, not how you want it to be.

MacGuffin:

Whether or not we should view him as a hero, that’s a subjective opinion for the viewer.

I can view serial killers as heroes. Doesn’t make me right.

He was murdering people because he felt his family was threatened? First of all, that’s absurd. The people he was murdering would never show up here. That is completely unrealistic. Second, it’s bowing to propaganda. The people are supposed to be afraid so they support the war. Intelligent people understand that it’s all politics. The war cannot happen without support, and there can be no support without fear. Therefore, the people are made to be afraid. Instead of telling positive news stories, the media hammers the citizens with nonsense about the Taliban, Isis, ebola, anthrax, North Korea, measles, swine flu, Sars, Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. The fear-mongering never stops. Unless you are smart enough to turn off your TV.

Cowering to the lies of the media does not make one heroic.

Me:

I can view serial killers as heroes. Doesn’t make me right.

There’s a big difference between a serial killer and a soldier.

He was murdering people because he felt his family was threatened? First of all, that’s absurd. The people he was murdering would never show up here. That is completely unrealistic.

I never said that. When did I even imply that? And it’s not murder, dumbass, I thought I made that clear in my last post when I gave the definition for murder and pointed out that Kyle’s actions don’t fall under that category. He was “killing” people to protect his fellow soldiers, that was his main reason. The other reasons were to follow orders and protect Iraqi civilians.

Second, it’s bowing to propaganda. The people are supposed to be afraid so they support the war. Intelligent people understand that it’s all politics. The war cannot happen without support, and there can be no support without fear. Therefore, the people are made to be afraid. Instead of telling positive news stories, the media hammers the citizens with nonsense about the Taliban, Isis, ebola, anthrax, North Korea, measles, swine flu, Sars, Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. The fear-mongering never stops. Unless you are smart enough to turn off your TV.

Cowering to the lies of the media does not make one heroic.

Now that is definitely taking this discussion well outside the scope of the movie. Anyway, yes, Chris Kyle can be considered to be mislead by the media which ultimately got him to join the military and fight in the war. You could argue that Chris Kyle, along with a decent amount of U.S. troops joined for all the wrong reasons due to misleading information the news and government provided. But you can also say the majority of Iraqis are misguided as well with the information they are given in the country they live in, and fight for reasons that are every bit as misguided as that of the U.S. troops, if not more-so.

But that’s a discussion that goes way beyond the boundaries of this movie and what it is trying to achieve, much less the book it is based on. Back to the topic at hand, you stated that Chris Kyle shouldn’t be considered a hero because of all the killing he did, that it’s wrong to praise someone who kills. I don’t have much of a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is calling a soldier who kills insurgents and enemies and others who threaten civilian lives as well as the lives of his brothers in arms a despicable human being. Don’t turn this into a whole “wrong/right reason for war” discussion, that’s a discussion for blaming people other than the soldiers. That’s for throwing arguments against the people who send the soldiers, not the soldiers themselves. If you want to have a debate on this movie, you keep it to the actions of the soldier himself. You said yourself, “I cannot comment on the movie by speaking of events outside of what the movie presents.” Stick to your words.

MacGuffin’s next response has been blocked by a website moderator. So there’s a gap here. This is my response to the blocked response:

Me:

My point is to give you reasons why Kyle is considered a hero, that it’s not just because he killed people, as soldiers tend to do. I am here to give my opinion in the hopes of letting you see the faults in yours. My goal is to show you that you are being too harsh on Kyle for reasons that are probably unreasonable. I may not be doing a good job at persuading. Less is probably more, though I doubt you would say the same for the film.

MacGuffin:

It is not unreasonable to expect more humanity from those given the label of “hero”. The guy was a mass-murderer. That’s all he’s famous for – ending lives.

American propaganda will tell you that killing bad guys warrants medals of honor and prestige, but when you strip away the patriotic artifice, you’re left with a murderer. That’s it. Just a guy killing fellow human beings.

The only fault is in the assumption that violence is the only approach to conflict resolution. Of course, those profiteering from the war would not hesitate to help gullible sheep believe that.

If a man wants to protect his family, he should start with what can immediately and directly harm them. A bunch of nobodies waving machine guns on the other side of the world should not be high on this person’s list of priorities. Perhaps educating fellow Americans about the dangers of using cancer-causing BPA containers would be a more impactful endeavor? Or maybe helping get other harmful ingredients out of human care products? Aluminum and triclosan in our deodorant is harming a lot more Americans than the Taliban, but because some dumbass doesn’t know this because it’s not on the news and he only listens to what he’s told by the media like a good American puppet, we’re supposed to see this lack of education as justification for mass murder?

If he wanted to protect his family, he should have started by keeping them from what can truly, in a real world situation, harm them. With all the garbage Americans put in and on their bodies every day, who is the true enemy? Who is doing more harm to citizens of the United States?

The answer is those running the United States.

Do you know why those running America want Chris Kyle to be seen as a hero? Because he did as he was told, didn’t ask questions, and didn’t think for himself. He did exactly what those proliferating propaganda wanted him to do. Of course they would view him as a hero.

If you want to continue this discussion, please do so on your own review. I will not participate in further conversation in this review, and replies in relation to anything but the film-making of American Sniper will be flagged as spam and reported to the moderators, as this is a forum for film discussion, not politics.

Thank you.

I will conclude with a quote…

“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.” – Albert Einstein

Since he didn’t want me participating any further, I carried on the discussion to my post, away from him, so he wouldn’t get all pissy.

@Egg MacGuffin
If you want to continue this discussion, please do so on your own review.

Continuing a discussion that I’ve had on his review, he decided it best to bring it over here. So first off, I have this to say to MacGuffin, I’m sorry. I’m sorry for acting rude earlier. This is why I only rarely get into discussion like this, because I tend get carried away with my behavior. I stick by my words, but I agree they could have been said with more finesse. I usually try to be funny with my dark sense of humor, but I probably crossed the line. From this point forward, for this thread anyway, I will make a strong attempt to be more polite. Right, let’s get on with it.

It is not unreasonable to expect more humanity from those given the label of “hero”. The guy was a mass-murderer. That’s all he’s famous for – ending lives.

Let’s make this perfectly clear, murder and killing are 2 different things. Killing is simply taking the life of another individual. Murder is about how that life is taken.
murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
source: google.com

The key word there being “unlawful”. It is not considered unlawful for a soldier to kill others that he is ordered to kill last time I checked. And by killing others, in this case, that mean killing insurgents who pose a threat to either civilians or American troops. Not once did Chris Kyle do otherwise.

However, I can see why you would still think that soldiers can be considered murderers (soldiers not following the rules of engagement aside) with the quote you gave earlier:
“It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.” – Albert Einstein

But who is the murderer, the soldier, or the people who send the soldiers? The soldiers may deploy with the intention of killing others, as they go in knowing that is what is expected of them. But they don’t go in just to kill anyone in general. They shoot people who set bombs, who carry guns and are prepared to use them against ally soldiers and civilians. And you see something wrong with that? It’s easier to see the faults in the people who decided it best to send people like that into that specific country in the first place than it is in soldiers.

American propaganda will tell you that killing bad guys warrants medals of honor and prestige, but when you strip away the patriotic artifice, you’re left with a murderer. That’s it. Just a guy killing fellow human beings.

No. You are left with an individual who protected the lives of those who would have been ended by the people the guy did kill. In other words, a guy who killed individuals who were about to go kill other fellow human beings. Thus someone who saved lives. It sucks that soldiers have to kill some to save others, but that’s the world we’re in. That’s reality.

The only fault is in the assumption that violence is the only approach to conflict resolution. Of course, those profiteering from the war would not hesitate to help gullible sheep believe that.

Like I asked, who is the murderer, the soldiers, or those who send them?

If a man wants to protect his family, he should start with what can immediately and directly harm them. A bunch of nobodies waving machine guns on the other side of the world should not be high on this person’s list of priorities. Perhaps educating fellow Americans about the dangers of using cancer-causing BPA containers would be a more impactful endeavor? Or maybe helping get other harmful ingredients out of human care products? Aluminum and triclosan in our deodorant is harming a lot more Americans than the Taliban, but because some dumbass doesn’t know this because it’s not on the news and he only listens to what he’s told by the media like a good American puppet, we’re supposed to see this lack of education as justification for mass murder?

This discussion is losing focus. This isn’t going in accord with what you stated earlier:
I cannot comment on the movie by speaking of events outside of what the movie presents. The movie IS the presentation

You’re implying that soldiers shouldn’t exist who get deployed overseas. Maybe they shouldn’t, but that didn’t stop the people overseas from sending others to hijack planes and crash them in buildings overseas. Scientists have their roles, soldiers have theirs. Don’t send a soldier to do a scientist’s job.

And it’s true, he may not have been as educated on the events surrounding the war as he should have been. But if you’re indicating that this ignorance means that he should be labeled as a murderer, then you are sorely mistaken.

If he wanted to protect his family, he should have started by keeping them from what can truly, in a real world situation, harm them. With all the garbage Americans put in and on their bodies every day, who is the true enemy? Who is doing more harm to citizens of the United States?

The answer is those running the United States.

I refer to what I said above.

Do you know why those running America want Chris Kyle to be seen as a hero? Because he did as he was told, didn’t ask questions, and didn’t think for himself. He did exactly what those proliferating propaganda wanted him to do. Of course they would view him as a hero.

Well, yeah. But it’s not just those running America who view Chris Kyle as a hero. It’s also those who viewed him as such before the movie and book were ever made. People who said he saved them, veterans he helped stateside, the Heroes Project he helped set up. A few things that go more towards the non-killing help that an individual can provide that you have been implying for much of this post you made.

Now, are we done talking about the things that aren’t in the movie? Is this discussion over?

Nope, it wasn’t over.

MyNameIsMe:

I didn’t want to continue on with these discussions, but hell, let me just say this:

– Was Kyle racist towards Iraqis? Yes – with supposedly fair cause in his view.
– Was any context about the Iraqis perspective given? No.
– Was there any moral judgment given on war? No.

Now, one needs to face the reality that many people out there in the world are racist. One also needs to point out that many people are filled with hatred and violence. These are simple truths about Humanity. Now, if these people see a film which, like previously stated, shows a man killing Iraqis without providing any moral reasoning or different perspectives, however justified that is in the film, what will these people think? They will continue to believe that violence, hatred and racism are acceptable and they will glorify Kyle. That is the film’s consequence. It might not have been its intention, but as the filmmakers made it they probably realized what they were doing. There is nothing wrong about making a film from only one perspective, there’s nothing wrong about making a film about war in which there is violence, obviously. The wrongdoing lies in the fact that in this specific case this war was unwarranted and to make a film that shows the opposite is wrong. You said yourself that “People have come to realize that politicians put soldiers in Iraq for reasons that aren’t completely justifiable to say the least (oil, rebuilding the nation as one of democracy, WMDs [which did end up being BS], response to 9/11 (though there wasn’t a clear connection), finishing what was started in the Gulf War, support in congress and by 70% of Americans). If people know all of this then why is a film that 1)discards these reasons and 2) shows a man who thought what he was doing was right, any valid? The film basically tries to justify a war that like you said was unjustifiable.

Was Kyle racist towards Iraqis? Yes – with supposedly fair cause in his view.

It was fair cause.

Was any context about the Iraqis perspective given? No.

Agreed.

Was there any moral judgment given on war? No.

Agreed.

Now, one needs to face the reality that many people out there in the world are racist. One also needs to point out that many people are filled with hatred and violence. These are simple truths about Humanity. Now, if these people see a film which, like previously stated, shows a man killing Iraqis without providing any moral reasoning or different perspectives, however justified that is in the film, what will these people think? They will continue to believe that violence, hatred and racism are acceptable and they will glorify Kyle. That is the film’s consequence. It might not have been its intention, but as the filmmakers made it they probably realized what they were doing. There is nothing wrong about making a film from only one perspective, there’s nothing wrong about making a film about war in which there is violence, obviously. The wrongdoing lies in the fact that in this specific case this war was unwarranted and to make a film that shows the opposite is wrong.

I would tread carefully here if I were you. This is another one of these discussions that strays beyond the bounds of the movie. Yes, there are people who will hate Middle Eastern people for reasons that aren’t wholly justified, reasons that are logical and illogical, the illogical part being key to them being unreasonable. These people are this way either because they were raised to be this way, or they chose to be this way after specific events, whether they be 9/11 or for other reasons.

And you’re arguing that films shouldn’t be made that would further build and/or justify this unjustifiable hatred. I call bullshit on that. First of all, considering all the other anti-war films and documentaries that exist that most of the people who have seen American Sniper have also likely seen, and the fact that these people are no less racist than they were before, do you really think changing the film to make the perspective greater than that of just Chris Kyle would do any better to change their opinions? I seriously doubt it.

I like that films exist that show multiple perspectives, and by that I mean that individual films exist that show one perspective, but each film gives a different one. I like seeing that there are WWII films that show the perspective/message/logic of war from the side of the Allies and the Axis, from the Jews and the Nazis. I like the fact that there are films that exclusively dedicate themselves to just 1 perspective. I like this because it allows for interesting discussions to come up, about how others saw the war, about what others experienced from war. And you’re telling me that a film shouldn’t be made just because you disagree with a perspective because you assume that it will drive people to become more hate-filled? If so, fuck you. Hate-filled people are always going to exist. The existence of supposed “racist” films or lack thereof isn’t going to change that. Deal with it. And the fact that there are plenty of people like you who have gripes about this film, as far as I’m concerned, only proves that people are intelligent enough to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions about what transpires in a film and what to think of it, and what lessons are to be learned from it. For those who can’t think for themselves, there’s no fucking hope for them, no matter what is or isn’t made.

You said yourself that “People have come to realize that politicians put soldiers in Iraq for reasons that aren’t completely justifiable to say the least (oil, rebuilding the nation as one of democracy, WMDs [which did end up being BS], response to 9/11 (though there wasn’t a clear connection), finishing what was started in the Gulf War, support in congress and by 70% of Americans). If people know all of this then why is a film that 1)discards these reasons and 2) shows a man who thought what he was doing was right, any valid? The film basically tries to justify a war that like you said was unjustifiable.

NO! No no no no no no no no. Nnnnnooooooooooooooooo. Nanananananahhhhhhhhhhhh.

This film isn’t about the war in general, it’s about one man’s experience in the war. It doesn’t discard these reasons because it never held these reasons from the get-go. They were never there to begin with in this film. Hasn’t it once occurred to you that a film made to take place in and during a time of war, with a soldier as the main protagonist, isn’t necessarily about that particular war in general? The film is neither pro-war or anti-war as far as I’m concerned, that’s something that viewers intentionally and consciously choose to see like how people choose to believe that John Carpenter’s The Thing is a film about fear of AIDS. That’s reaching, and going beyond the film’s primary intention. The film is meant to show Chris Kyle’s experience in war, the brothers in arms he lost, why he fought, and how intense modern warfare actually is. And that’s all. Act of Valor was more pro war than this movie.

I will agree that the film does show a man who believed he was doing right. And that is where the discussion should be. On Chris Kyle himself, on his opinions, whether he should be considered a hero or not, was he a good or bad man, etc. Not whether the war he was in was justified, but whether or not he acted justifiably in warfare. Should he be respected or not? The film’s message is that he should be respected. Some people disagree with that message. Some give reasons that I honestly can’t fully disagree with because some of those reasons are subjective, personal opinions. I have a problem with those who have objective reasons that I believe to be flawed, the main reasons being the intentions of the movie. This isn’t the first film where critics/viewers have made that mistake (ex: Eyes Wide Shut), and it won’t be the last. But fuck me is it one of the most annoying.

MyNameIsMe:

It was fair cause.

By your standards that very first sentence is subjective. For some people seeing men from a different race killing men from their own race doesn’t turn them into racists. Example: just because I saw a black man murdering ten white men that doesn’t mean I have a fair cause to be racist against blacks. That’s idiotic reasoning. If you think because some Iraqi men bombed your city then all of Iraqis should be exterminated then there’s no point to this conversation because you’re a racist, disgusting human being.

You’re telling me that a film shouldn’t be made just because you disagree with a perspective because you assume that it will drive people to become more hate-filled? If so, fuck you. Hate-filled people are always going to exist. The existence of supposed “racist” films or lack thereof isn’t going to change that. Deal with it.

The thing is that in this specific case the consequences are despicable. If today anyone saw a film that took the Nazi side they could appreciate it as phsychological and sociological document, but obviously they would understand that the film’s position was wrong. And that applies to every other war/conflict that we realize today who was right party and who was the wrong one. But in this specific case there are still many people who support Kyle’s racism, violence and the war itself and therefore it is a deeply irresponsible film. If four years after the end of the II World War Germany had made a film that again discriminated Jews and glorified the arian race do you think it would have been accepted? Or considered any good? Well, that’s what American Sniper is. A film like Inglorious Basterds can condone violence because the conflict at stake in no longer important in the world. The Middle East situation, on the other hand, is still very much a very difficult and current problem.

Should he be respected or not? The film’s message is that he should be respected. Some people disagree with that message. Some give reasons that I honestly can’t fully disagree with because some of those reasons are subjective, personal opinions.

Then that’s it. Chris Kyle was a racist. He killed people, enemies, who were killing his “brothers”. But if we look back upon it, if we put ourselves in Kyle’s position, were his actions correct? Let’s imagine this: Kyle was a german living in Germany in the 30’s and 40’s. His government told its people to declare war on foreign countries based on their race. So Kyle joined the army, became a racist himself and started killing Jews and Americans and what not. Just because he thought he was making good and because he was following his governments opinion doesn’t make his actions any more tolerable. A man should think for himself. If you think that his reaction is the best, healthiest reaction that all people should take, then you’re the one who should go fuck himself.

Me:

By your standards that very first sentence is subjective. For some people seeing men from a different race killing men from their own race doesn’t turn them into racists. Example: just because I saw a black man murdering ten white men that doesn’t mean I have a fair cause to be racist against blacks. That’s idiotic reasoning. If you think because some Iraqi men bombed your city then all of Iraqis should be exterminated then there’s no point to this conversation because you’re a racist, disgusting human being.

Well thankfully I’m not a person who thinks like that.

Anyway, there are some big bits of information you don’t seem to consider with this implication. Bits of information that make Kyle’s status of being or not being racist irrelevant. The biggest one is, as I have explained in my review and in several of the above posts, that every kill Kyle made was done following the ROE, which means that every target he killed was a legitimate threat to either civilians or other American troops.

The thing is that in this specific case the consequences are despicable. If today anyone saw a film that took the Nazi side they could appreciate it as phsychological and sociological document, but obviously they would understand that the film’s position was wrong. And that applies to every other war/conflict that we realize today who was right party and who was the wrong one. But in this specific case there are still many people who support Kyle’s racism, violence and the war itself and therefore it is a deeply irresponsible film.

So if I understand your implications then, you believe the film is irresponsible because you believe this film will drive those people who support Kyle’s racism to become more racist to the point that they will want to do harm to all Iraqis in general? First of all I don’t believe for a second the movie glorifies or even highlights Middle Eastern racism for reasons I gave in earlier posts. Second of all, if this film was all it took to get some people to go apeshit over some Middle Easterners, then I’m pretty sure just about anything else would set them off. That’s borderline similar to saying the Doom videogames caused the 2 high school fucks to start blasting kids at their school. And I state again, having this movie show perspectives from both sides, giving sympathy for both the American side and the Iraqi side, isn’t going to change the minds of the racists. They see what they want to see in a movie, just like you want to see that the film promotes racism and getting more and more American to take up arms and start going out in the streets, or taking flights over to Iraq, and start shooting the shit out of every brown bearded stereotypical Islamic person they lay eyes on.

If four years after the end of the II World War Germany had made a film that again discriminated Jews and glorified the arian race do you think it would have been accepted? Or considered any good? Well, that’s what American Sniper is.

Well it would certainly be considered accepted and good by the majority of Nazis at the time I’m sure, but it would be considered bad by just about everyone else. But if you’re going to equate a film like American Sniper with Nazi propoganda, you had better bring up some very good fucking reasons and examples. You can’t just claim it. Tell me why. Show me evidence. Because I don’t remember Jews, even the most fanatical of Jews, setting up bombs and killing off both civilians and soldiers, both foreign and local, on a borderline daily basis. Nazis hated Jews because they were delusional assholes. Kyle hated “fanatical” insurgents because they were a legitimate danger to his brothers in arms.

A film like Inglorious Basterds can condone violence because the conflict at stake in no longer important in the world. The Middle East situation, on the other hand, is still very much a very difficult and current problem.

And that’s the reason this film shouldn’t have been made huh? That, and the arguments made above, are not going to hold up to scrutiny. I guarantee it.

Then that’s it. Chris Kyle was a racist. He killed people, enemies, who were killing his “brothers”. But if we look back upon it, if we put ourselves in Kyle’s position, were his actions correct? Let’s imagine this: Kyle was a german living in Germany in the 30’s and 40’s. His government told its people to declare war on foreign countries based on their race. So Kyle joined the army, became a racist himself and started killing Jews and Americans and what not. Just because he thought he was making good and because he was following his governments opinion doesn’t make his actions any more tolerable. A man should think for himself.

As I indicated above, it’s hardly the same situation. Let me rephrase that, it’s not the same situation. Kyle isn’t a Nazi, he wasn’t raised to have the mindset of killing people for no reason other than that he didn’t like them, and that’s that. Take that conversation to some other movie where that is the case, not here.

But just to put a little highlight dab on things, there is at least one incident to be considered that indicates Kyle isn’t as heartless as you would think. They show this in the movie (with slightly more dramatic effect compared to the reality I’m sure, but it was in the book), a scene where a kid is trying to pick up a weapon and aim it at soldiers and shoot them with it. Kyle never took the shot. This happened in the movie and in reality. As if following the ROE wasn’t evidence enough, even if Kyle was a racist at heart, he has proven he can keep his emotions in check when on the battlefield and stay professional. Every kill he made was for legit reasons.

If you think that his reaction is the best, healthiest reaction that all people should take, then you’re the one who should go fuck himself.

Well it’s about damn time someone threw the f-bomb right back at me.

I have a question. Considering that neither one of us, I’m assuming, hasn’t been in battle, been in similar situations as Kyle, and seen some of their best friends killed in action, and gone through the stress of war, if you were in Kyles position, assuming you decided to become a soldier, go through all the training, and get put in battle, what would you do in his place? What healthy action and reaction would you deem appropriate when you see men planting a bomb in the middle of a street, or see men with AK-47s moving around a corner to ambush American troops or civilians? I have a feeling your answer would be along the lines of, “Well I’m not in the military because blah-blah-blah,” which would be a fair answer, but then you would be in less of a position to judge his actions.

MyNameIsMe:

Every kill Kyle made was done following the ROE, which means that every target he killed was a legitimate threat to either civilians or other American troops.

What has that to do with having fair cause? I explained why Kyle’s racism obviously didn’t have “fair cause”, and you start talking about his actions in combat. I’m not referring to his kills but his point of view. His racism had no fair cause, like I explained, unless he was a horrible human being which is exactly what I’m trying to get across. (And either way, that fact that you point out might be true only because he was controlled by his superiors and couldn’t just bomb everything to the ground.)

Now, in your previous comment you said: “The film’s message is that he should be respected.” and now you say: I don’t believe for a second the movie glorifies or even highlights Middle Eastern racism”. Well, if Kyle was indeed a racist like we admitted already (and you even said he had fair cause) and if the film showed indeed that he should be respected, then how can you say the film doesn’t condone racism?! That’s ridiculous. Stop contradicting yourself.

But if you’re going to equate a film like American Sniper with Nazi propoganda, you had better bring up some very good fucking reasons and examples. You can’t just claim it.

I only used the Nazi example because you used it in your review. Either way it doesn’t matter, because what was said about the IIWW can be said about most wars. Just because Kyle joined the army and followed his country’s decision still doesn’t make him any more correct. His actions cannot be tolerated based on the fact that he was doing what he thought was right, so let’s let go of that pathetic argument.

Considering that neither one of us, I’m assuming, hasn’t been in battle, been in similar situations as Kyle, and seen some of their best friends killed in action, and gone through the stress of war, if you were in Kyle’s position, assuming you decided to become a soldier, go through all the training, and get put in battle, what would you do in his place?

That’s were the problem lies. I would have never enlisted in the first place. Not because I wouldn’t want to fight for my country, my people and my safety but because I would’ve studied the situation a lot more to see if such war/battle would lead anywhere. If Kyle too perhaps had studied to understand why the US had declared war, then he would have never become racist, violent and would have never killed or been killed. (And even if I did decide to enlist that would never make me a racist, because one thing is to kill people for the safety of others, which I understand sometimes might be the best solution, but to turn that into hatred for all people of a specific race is horrible and unthinkable.)

Me:

What has that to do with having fair cause? I explained why Kyle’s racism obviously didn’t have “fair cause”, and you start talking about his actions in combat. I’m not referring to his kills but his point of view. His racism had no fair cause, like I explained, unless he was a horrible human being which is exactly what I’m trying to get across. (And either way, that fact that you point out might be true only because he was controlled by his superiors and couldn’t just bomb everything to the ground.)

Back up a second. How is it that you are defining “fair cause” exactly?

Now, in your previous comment you said: “The film’s message is that he should be respected.” and now you say: I don’t believe for a second the movie glorifies or even highlights Middle Eastern racism”. Well, if Kyle was indeed a racist like we admitted already (and you even said he had fair cause) and if the film showed indeed that he should be respected, then how can you say the film doesn’t condone racism?! That’s ridiculous. Stop contradicting yourself.

Because, like I said, the film doesn’t highlight racism. It’s never brought up, it’s never pointed out, it’s never even implied. The film wants to glorify Kyle for the kills he made, because that’s what soldiers do, they shoot and kill people. Racism has nothing to do with their duty unless it interferes with how they go about doing it. The film didn’t point out anything about racism being a factor with the kills made, therefore the film doesn’t condone racism. That’s like saying Escape From Alcatraz doesn’t condone pedophilia and bashing it for that reason.

Just because Kyle joined the army and followed his country’s decision still doesn’t make him any more correct. His actions cannot be tolerated based on the fact that he was doing what he thought was right, so let’s let go of that pathetic argument.

So far you haven’t has one good argument as to why his actions shouldn’t be tolerated. The best you’re trying to come up with is racism, and that isn’t a factor in the movie. I consider that a pathetic argument. I doubt this discussion will carry on much longer, because as far as I can tell, both of us view each other as misguided in our beliefs and sense of logic and on how we view this movie and the real life character, at the very least. I don’t see that changing.

MyNameIsMe:

How is it that you are defining “fair cause” exactly?

A person acts or has a belief due to a cause or multiple causes. That action or belief can be considered “right” or “wrong” based on the fact if that cause(s) is “fair”, if it is understandable. Example: Child “A” hits child “B” because child “B” had hit a friend of “A”. That can be considered right or wrong. Person “C” kills person “D” because person “D” robbed the home of “C”. That’s probably not fair cause. In Kyle’s case it’s basically: person “A” kills people “B, C, D, E, F, G,…” because person “X” killed family/friends of “A”. Hence, he does not have fair cause.

Because, like I said, the film doesn’t highlight racism. It’s never brought up, it’s never pointed out, it’s never even implied. The film wants to glorify Kyle for the kills he made, because that’s what soldiers do, they shoot and kill people.

If the protagonist is racist and his actions are due to this internal factor then the film doesn’t need to “bring it up”. Films aren’t only judged on what they clearly present, the interpretations and ideas one gets out of it after thinking about it count just as much. In Foxcatcher it is never clearly expressed that the murdered had mental issues or reasons for his actions, so we shouldn’t take that into consideration?! A film needs to spoon-feed you everything otherwise you can’t count it?! Then what’s the point of cinema damn it?!

You yourself said the discussion about this film should be “On Chris Kyle himself, on his opinions, whether he should be considered a hero or not, was he a good or bad man” and now you say that if the film doesn’t show his points of view, namely racism, then we can’t consider it? (Also, that is another reason for my deep dislike for the film, it supports Kyle’s behavior, which is bad enough, but doesn’t even explore that behavior properly and doesn’t even admit to supporting him.)

So far you haven’t has one good argument as to why his actions shouldn’t be tolerated.

He was a soldier with questionable etics who got pleasure out of killing people and who wished to kill more in order to “protect” his people. The government used him (along with many others) and his mental disturbances to profit and kill people for that profit. He was so obssessed with the army that he went on several tours and gainned reputation for his brutalness, only to neglect his family and become even more obssessed with murder. He became a consequence of the awful environment he lived in, he became hateful, racist and violent and was allowed to continue to pursue his obssessions. He reacted awfully to the 9/11 attacks and resorted to violence to fight violence. And yes he was racist.

I doubt this discussion will carry on much longer, because as far as I can tell, both of us view each other as misguided in our beliefs and sense of logic and on how we view this movie and the real life character, at the very least. I don’t see that changing.

Well, my fault for trying to argue with a person who thinks racism can be justified.

Me:

First off, I should respond to this statement you made:
If the protagonist is racist and his actions are due to this internal factor then the film doesn’t need to “bring it up”. Films aren’t only judged on what they clearly present, the interpretations and ideas one gets out of it after thinking about it count just as much. In Foxcatcher it is never clearly expressed that the murdered had mental issues or reasons for his actions, so we shouldn’t take that into consideration?! A film needs to spoon-feed you everything otherwise you can’t count it?! Then what’s the point of cinema damn it?!

You yourself said the discussion about this film should be “On Chris Kyle himself, on his opinions, whether he should be considered a hero or not, was he a good or bad man” and now you say that if the film doesn’t show his points of view, namely racism, then we can’t consider it?

Ok, that’s a fair point. Discussion on racism it is.

A person acts or has a belief due to a cause or multiple causes. That action or belief can be considered “right” or “wrong” based on the fact if that cause(s) is “fair”, if it is understandable. Example: Child “A” hits child “B” because child “B” had hit a friend of “A”. That can be considered right or wrong. Person “C” kills person “D” because person “D” robbed the home of “C”. That’s probably not fair cause. In Kyle’s case it’s basically: person “A” kills people “B, C, D, E, F, G,…” because person “X” killed family/friends of “A”. Hence, he does not have fair cause.

Ok. You mentioned in your initial post, “Was Kyle racist towards Iraqis? Yes – with supposedly fair cause in his view.” That, along with a few other statements you made, along with the implication above, indicates that you believe Kyle doesn’t have fair cause because he killed under the irrational belief that at least one of the hundreds of Iraqis he killed had also killed some of his military pals. You are right in that this isn’t fair cause, but the problem is that this view is leaving out facts that absolutely must be taken into consideration, otherwise this view becomes biased.

You took my initial response earlier when I said, “It was fair cause,” to be some kind of racially motivate statement, that Kyle was killing because he hated people of another race. I responded by stating that this wasn’t the case, that he was killing because he was doing his duty as a soldier, shooting each person because they posed a legitimate threat to civilians or to soldiers, following the official ROE guidelines. That is why I conclude that Chris Kyle had fair cause.

And yet somehow you keep trying to turn this around into saying that his kills were racially motivated to prove that he didn’t have fair cause. If the kills were racially motivated, which they may have been, considering that even I myself stated that it is likely that Kyle is racist (though I believe you are expanding his actual level of racism beyond the reality of its actual state), they only played a small part in the motivation. People can have multiple motivations for killing another human being. In Chris Kyle’s case, and I’m sure this applies to a lot of soldiers in general, his primary motivation wasn’t hatred/racism. It was duty. Killing the enemy to prevent them from killing other civilians/soldiers (which I have stated time and time again, with examples, in many many posts and responses to posts and in the main review, was done with legitimate cause independent of racism) was a larger motivation than killing them just because he hated them because they were of a different race.

That was the largest motivation, killing them to prevent them from killing several of his brothers in arms, and in every kill that was the case. And on top of that, racism wouldn’t have been the only reason he hated the insurgents. As I have also pointed out in a couple posts previous, he had other reasons to feel hatred for them besides the fact that they were a danger to his troops, and besides the possible fact that he just disliked Iraqis in general, such as the father hiding behind the daughter, doping themselves up so they can have the courage to fight troops, the civilians they killed, etc. All those factors have to be taken into account for any motivation he had beyond just doing his duty, not just racism. Therefore, I conclude that racism was not the primary internal factor that led to his actions. If you want to argue that racism was the primary driving factor into him doing these kills, then bring up a compelling argument.

And, please, keep in mind everything I have stated before that can be used to go against any pro-racist argument you bring up in the future, I don’t want to have to keep repeating myself.

He was a soldier with questionable etics who got pleasure out of killing people and who wished to kill more in order to “protect” his people.

Well what do you think would happen to a soldier who hated killing people, but had to kill people because, well, it’s his job? He wouldn’t be cut out for the job, he would lose his mind. Soldiers have to learn to cope with what they do. One of the most common ways to do so is to learn to enjoy killing others. Yes, it’s terrible. But it’s also necessary. Sure as hell isn’t any different on the opposing side of the battlefield. In fact, it’s not much different in the case of any war ever.

The government used him (along with many others) and his mental disturbances to profit and kill people for that profit.

That is going beyond the scope of the movie and the book. I’ve indulged enough in my discussions with others about the government’s role in the war, I’m not going back into it. If you want a discussion that covers that spectrum, go bitch to someone who wrote a review on some Iraq war documentary.

He was so obssessed with the army that he went on several tours and gainned reputation for his brutalness, only to neglect his family and become even more obssessed with murder. He became a consequence of the awful environment he lived in, he became hateful, racist and violent and was allowed to continue to pursue his obssessions. He reacted awfully to the 9/11 attacks and resorted to violence to fight violence. And yes he was racist.

Neglect his family, yes. In fact, that’s one of his faults that is an invitation for a thoughtful discussion, on whether serving your country should be more important than serving your family, or what the fine balance is between doing one and the other.

Become even more obsessed with murder, no. Both the movie and the book point out that his obsession was with saving American lives. Don’t confuse that with obsession with murder. If you want to go against the statements of the movie and book, then you need to give an argument with evidence to back it up that he had an obsession with murder that was great than his obsession with protecting lives.

Regarding the racism, see above.

Discussions on Racism

So it begins.  Been getting feedback from my Do the Right Thing review in my entry on letterboxd, and I’m hoping the same thing will happen on the other platforms the review is linked to.  I’m going to post the back-and-forth discussions I’ve been having.  Because I’ve learned from experience that if I end up posting something on a website other than my own that is on a very hot-button topic, there’s a chance enough people will bitch about it to where they can convince the moderators to remove the entire entry, along with the comments and discussions.  This happened once without warning to my The Red Pill review on letterboxd.  This blog entry will be updated so long as the conversation continues.  Because racism is a topic that should be discussed.  So without further ado:

  • i was ready to answer the questions you brought up in the first paragraph because, even though it shouldn’t still need to be taught in this day and age, some people still don’t understand how racism really works. and i want them to learn. so i’m glad to teach. but as i read more of this “review,” it became obvious that you are – despite the fact that you will probably deny it – an ignorant racist.
    so i won’t waste my time trying to teach you because you won’t even spend the time to learn.

Me:

I’m willing to listen. I’m willing to learn. Are you?

Being ignorant means being uneducated, uninformed, unaware, sometimes intentionally so. I’m inviting conversation here, because I would love to see and hear opposing viewpoints from those who themselves are not ignorant, or at the very least don’t believe they are (at the very least not being a troll). Making the assumption that I won’t spend the time to learn arguably makes you the ignorant one. Care to prove me wrong on that?

As for racism, you imply that I don’t know how it really works, or at the very least that my understanding on how it works is misguided. Can’t know how I’m misguided unless it’s pointed out to me. But keep in mind, this can go both ways.

I only enjoy conversations with people who intend to influence my thoughts/beliefs only if they themselves are willing to likewise have their own thoughts/beliefs influenced. I don’t like one-sided conversations. This “review”, it’s every bit as much of a review as it is a strong encouragement for conversation starting. Do I not encourage such in the 3rd to the last paragraph?

  • i mentioned you don’t spend the time to learn because your review just shows that you haven’t learned basic social rules/morals. saying the n word dozens of times doesn’t make it acceptable, it just shows you don’t understand what’s wrong with using it. if you didn’t realize that, you most likely ignored anybody who’s ever said so. that’s why i feel like you don’t genuinely care to change your views

Me:

Ah, and there’s the part you’re missing. It’s not that I haven’t learned basic social rules/morals, it’s that I believe those social rules/morals should be challenged, especially when thinking about the how and why of those social rules doesn’t entirely add up in my opinion. What I’m expecting from an upright socially outstanding strict rule-following high moral individual such as yourself is an argument on why those rules should be followed as opposed to being changed.

Why should saying nigger dozens of times be any less acceptable than saying shit/hell/damn/fuck/bitch/twat/cunt/dick/asshole/pussy dozens of times? If it’s because I’m white, I’d argue that’s racist against whites. See the double standard there? If you’re argument is because all of the above is not acceptable, then I’d say that’s problem with society nowadays, too thin-skinned, which is why there’s so many whiners and not enough people willing to focus on more important issues. Though on the other hand, the small stuff makes up the big stuff.

  • Why should saying nigger dozens of times be any less acceptable than saying shit/hell/damn/fuck/bitch/twat/cunt/dick/asshole/pussy dozens of times?


    Let’s take for example asshole to compare, the eventual issue with such a word is probably the connotations to something which is socially deemed as ”dirty” (and the same can be said for some other words there as well). The n-word on the other hand, has connotations to years of slavery, abuse, discrimination and other kinds of mistreatments of a specific group.

    Don’t you see the difference between something associated by a perceived dirty thing and something associated with the abuse, discrimination and even murder of people (not unlikely, people related to the person taking offence)?

Me:

Let’s take for example asshole to compare, the eventual issue with such a word is probably the connotations to something which is socially deemed as ”dirty” (and the same can be said for some other words there as well).

Some? You’re nicer than I am, I think they’re all dirty.
The n-word on the other hand, has connotations to years of slavery, abuse, discrimination and other kinds of mistreatments of a specific group.

Don’t you see the difference between something associated by a perceived dirty thing and something associated with the abuse, discrimination and even murder of people (not unlikely, people related to the person taking offence)?

Yeah, I do, just as I see “nazi” being thrown around just as much if not more so which has a similar sort of connotation. Or even “communist”. Yet those words are spoken freely on television and in kid books. Granted, they can be said either as an insult in reference to things nazis did under Hitler or what communists did under Stalin, or just talking about the subject of nazis and communists in general from a historical perspective. But that’s my point. Context. It’s all about the context of the usage of the word. If black people can freely say nigger within the context of not referring to those hundreds of years of slavery, than so should whites, especially when we live in a day and age where we don’t have slavery. If it’s to be taken as an insult from whites regardless of context, then I just don’t see that as a path leading towards racial equality, I see it as a path leading towards racial divide that plays into the “white guilt” complex, something that we all need to seriously get over.

  • The difference here is that nazi or communist is words associated with the perpetrators, whereas the n-word is associated with the victims. Or do you claim that nazis have suffered the same unjust treatment as those called the n-word?

    I don’t think the problem with the n-word is that it awakens the thought of the horrible acts associated (as would be the case with the word nazi) but rather that it’s so associated with being aimed at a person in context to the unjust treatment of that person. The difference between whites throwing the word around and black people doing the same is the power-relations, for a black person it would be to reclaim the slur whereas the white person uses it from a more privileged position (that of being free from a history of racial slavery)

    Also, there’s still slavery today.

Me: The difference here is that nazi or communist is words associated with the perpetrators, whereas the n-word is associated with the victims. Or do you claim that nazis have suffered the same unjust treatment as those called the n-word?
Well, they sort of did post-war, but that’s beside the point. But going back to “nigger” being associated with victims, here’s another food for thought. Would it be wrong to call a black person a nigger if they themselves were the slave owners? Fun fact, white crackers bought black slaves from black slave owners in Africa. They didn’t ride out on horseback and round them up themselves, despite what that show Roots may indicate. They bought them from black men in power who also owned slaves.

Also, there’s still slavery today.
There is still slavery today, just not in America. But in Africa… among others.

I don’t think the problem with the n-word is that it awakens the thought of the horrible acts associated (as would be the case with the word nazi)
Fair enough.

but rather that it’s so associated with being aimed at a person in context to the unjust treatment of that person.
And that’s not going to change until it’s used in other contexts, which is done today, by both blacks and (to a lesser extent) whites.

The difference between whites throwing the word around and black people doing the same is the power-relations, for a black person it would be to reclaim the slur whereas the white person uses it from a more privileged position (that of being free from a history of racial slavery)

And here’s the core of many of the dissenting arguments against my view. The power-relations argument. Which I’m assuming you mean in the context of whites having more privileges than blacks, in the present tense. I’ll agree that this is the case in some cities in the country, something that should be rectified. But by and large, on a whole, on an average, I don’t believe that’s the case. I believe that generally, if a black person is in a low-power state, it’s for reasons that have nothing to do with racism, not in relation to racism from external forces outside of the family anyway. Some are in that state because of a reliance on welfare and whatnot. Families with mothers who fuck a lot and have a bunch of babies so they can get welfare.

Personally, where I come from, plenty of black folks have it just as good as me, if not better. They’ve had the same opportunities as me, and took advantage of them, and became more successful than me. So when I see stories of blacks who claim to be victims of racism which is why they are in a supposed bad state of affairs, I take it with a grain of salt. It could be true, and they could be in a low-power poor-financial state due to racism. But if it’s not, they’re niggers. The type of niggers Chris Rock harps on in one of his standup gigs (see link to my website above, there is a video on it that has this standup bit).

  • “Hell, it doesn’t seem to be that big of a deal when a black person calls a white guy a “cracker”. It’s ok for a nigger to call a white guy a cracker, but it’s not ok for a cracker to call a black guy a nigger. Just doesn’t seem fair to me”

    Frankly it’s a wash if you base your argument on anecdotal experiences. It’s less of a formal statement and dialogue but rather casual opinion and conversation. If you were merely speaking about your own experiences in your local circles that’d be fine, but from what I gather, you aim to prescribe large-scale assessments on society and social issues as a whole, which I don’t think can work if you base and draw so much from anecdotal sources.

    “If black people can freely say nigger within the context of not referring to those hundreds of years of slavery, than so should whites”

    This is not equality. Black and white persons have completely different history and relations with the n-word, with black persons of course experiencing it extremely negatively. To suggest that both sides should just drop it/forget about the ideas and impact behind the word and move forward by both using it similarly freely is not fair and not equal. It would be like if a person who paid hundreds of dollars and a person who owed hundreds of dollars were both told that their financial statuses have been erased/ignored and they can now share some kind of service/device dually together.

    “And keep in mind what I consider a nigger to be. As far as I’m concerned, it’s an ignorant dumb as fuck individual, most of the time associated with black people, but can also be associated with whites. Hell, I’d like to see someone call a Native American or a Korean a nigger.”

    The n-word is not some abstract subjective thing you can “consider”. It would be like saying gravity is something I “consider”. It has a solid and concrete definition, history and association. A simple Google search will bring you to define it as “a contemptuous term for a black or dark-skinned person”. Calling someone of light skin the n-word simply does not make sense. Similar to how calling a non South Asian ethnic person a “gook” would make no sense. Honestly I wish I saw this sooner and saved my time. Forget about slavery and America, further discussion can’t be had if your perspective of the word is wrong to begin with.

Me:

Frankly it’s a wash if you base your argument on anecdotal experiences. It’s less of a formal statement and dialogue but rather casual opinion and conversation. If you were merely speaking about your own experiences in your local circles that’d be fine, but from what I gather, you aim to prescribe large-scale assessments on society and social issues as a whole, which I don’t think can work if you base and draw so much from anecdotal sources.

I do aim to prescribe large-scale assessments on society and social issues as a whole. As for anecdotal experiences, fair enough, I’ll bring up something else. See below (response to your final paragraph).
This is not equality. Black and white persons have completely different history and relations with the n-word, with black persons of course experiencing it extremely negatively. To suggest that both sides should just drop it/forget about the ideas and impact behind the word and move forward by both using it similarly freely is not fair and not equal. It would be like if a person who paid hundreds of dollars and a person who owed hundreds of dollars were both told that their financial statuses have been erased/ignored and they can now share some kind of service/device dually together.

That’s nowhere near the same fucking thing! The former (use of nigger) can be resolved strictly based on people’s attitudes and social upbringing with how they’re taught and raised to act towards that word. The latter (making the rich and the poor equals financially) is fucking socialism/communism, and there are plenty of arguments to be made against both. It’s not something resolved by a change of attitude, it’s resolved by giving/taking money from one or more individuals/organizations. This is an attitude issue, not an economic one. Unless you really want to expand the discussion that far, in which case we will be going on tangents.
The n-word is not some abstract subjective thing you can “consider”. It would be like saying gravity is something I “consider”. It has a solid and concrete definition, history and association. A simple Google search will bring you to define it as “a contemptuous term for a black or dark-skinned person”. Calling someone of light skin the n-word simply does not make sense. Similar to how calling a non South Asian ethnic person a “gook” would make no sense. Honestly I wish I saw this sooner and saved my time. Forget about slavery and America, further discussion can’t be had if your perspective of the word is wrong to begin with.

First of all, the google dictionary isn’t always reliable given it’s political reasons for changing the definition of “fascism”.

Second, reliable or not, I pretty much used a similar explanation for the definition within the first paragraph of the review. So don’t treat me like a dumbass who isn’t aware of such things when I’m including the very definition in my own review.

Third and most important, quite frankly, it doesn’t matter how much you claim “nigger” isn’t an abstract subjective thing that can be considered. It doesn’t matter how solid and concrete the definition has been in the past (or in the present, officially-speaking). It doesn’t matter if calling someone who is light-skinned a nigger doesn’t make sense. Because the fact of the matter is black people (I’m not speaking for all of them here, no more than either of us is speaking for every white person) do call light-skinned people niggers. The fact of the matter is that definitions for words do change overtime for any number of reasons (like Google’s definition for fascism, which happened within the last 2 years, for starters). The fact of the matter is that the word “nigger” has been used subjectively by both white and black people (especially the latter) over the last 3 decades.

Whether you decide to continue the discussion or not, there are holes in your argument here.

  • “If it’s because I’m white, I’d argue that’s racist against whites. See the double standard there? If you’re argument is because all of the above is not acceptable, then I’d say that’s problem with society nowadays, too thin-skinned, which is why there’s so many whiners and not enough people willing to focus on more important issues.”

    here’s what you don’t understand:
    racism does not go both ways. racism is not just hating somebody because of their skin color, that’s part of it, but not the worst part. racism is a systemic inequality based on race, and elevates a majority race to a higher social-political level than a minority race. a black person cannot be racist because black people do not have the same social-political power as a white man. i know you don’t believe that, but research will prove me correct. i could explain why that is, but it’d take far too long and there’s more efficient ways to learn (which i’ll get to later). but i will summarize since i don’t want to make my argument seem hollow. this goes back to days of slavery, obviously. after the 13th amendment came about, blacks were still far weaker than whites. Jim Crow came about, and once that was “abolished,” came segregation. white flight (google it) was also a major aspect of racism that came about in the 1900s that will explain how black communities are often more impoverished than white communities.

    “I believe that generally, if a black person is in a low-power state, it’s for reasons that have nothing to do with racism, not in relation to racism from external forces outside of the family anyway. Some are in that state because of a reliance on welfare and whatnot. Families with mothers who fuck a lot and have a bunch of babies so they can get welfare.”

    again, this all goes back to how blacks were discriminated against in early America. “reasons that have nothing to do with racism.” like i said above, racism is not just some white man threatening to kill somebody because they don’t like their skin color. racism is an inequality in opportunities and social-political status. many blacks are on welfare because of the hand America dealt them. i’m going to give a very specific example to make my point. this is not how all blacks on welfare came to be, but certainly how some came to be, and maybe you’ll get a general idea of the bigger picture i’m trying to send.
    Jim Crow laws, in case you’re unaware, were laws that heavily penalized blacks for doing minor issues – such as loitering. for example. Jim Crow laws are still around, to some extent, though not legally. by this, i mean: many blacks have been arrested for smoking weed, not because it is highly illegal, but because it’s an easy method of getting them into jail, which is the exact same ideal of Jim Crow laws. so let’s say a black man, a father, is arrested and sentenced to 6 months in prison. that leaves his wife to be a single mother, which results in her resorting to welfare because she cannot alone support her family. when the father returns from prison, he is unable to get a job because of his jail record, which leaves him unemployed for a while, and the mother still on welfare. i could go more in depth on how that situation could spiral, but that’s the main point of it. this happens very often.

    the other commenters on here made good points that i was planning to make myself.

    above i mentioned there are more efficient ways to learn about what i was discussing, and by that, i urge you to watch two documentaries: 13th and I Am Not Your Negro. i haven’t gone through your films to see if you’ve already seen them, but if you surprisingly have, i’d recommend you watch them again, because you might’ve missed the point. in case you’re unaware, 13th discusses how the 13th amendment and Jim Crow laws are still affecting the lives of blacks today, and goes in depth on why blacks “commit the majority of crimes,” like you mentioned above. I Am Not Your Negro talks about the history of blacks in America and how racism of the early 1900s affects our society today.

     

  • you also keep talking about being “tough skinned.” being “tough skinned” is what led us to have this bully as a president. if being tough skinned means accepting discrimination or bullying, count me the fuck out. blacks have gone over 200 years discriminated against and targeted, lived through slavery and segregation, and your answer to that is to grow tougher skin? hell no. how about the discrimination and hate ends, instead?

Me:

racism does not go both ways.

Oh I can’t wait to see where you’re going with this.
racism is a systemic inequality based on race, and elevates a majority race to a higher social-political level than a minority race. a black person cannot be racist because black people do not have the same social-political power as a white man. i know you don’t believe that, but research will prove me correct. i could explain why that is, but it’d take far too long and there’s more efficient ways to learn (which i’ll get to later). but i will summarize since i don’t want to make my argument seem hollow. this goes back to days of slavery, obviously. after the 13th amendment came about, blacks were still far weaker than whites. Jim Crow came about, and once that was “abolished,” came segregation. white flight (google it) was also a major aspect of racism that came about in the 1900s that will explain how black communities are often more impoverished than white communities.

Everyone knows that. So I’ll answer with this common saying, “What the fuck have you done for me lately?”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What the fuck have we (white people) been doing to black people lately that would justify this dumb fucking white guilt complex? Better yet, what the fuck have black people done lately? Sure there’ been great figures like MLK Jr. and Malcolm X, but that’s well in the past by now. All I’ve seen lately is bitching and moaning and BlackLivesMatter encouraging violence against whites and police. Quite frankly, it almost seems reasonable to bring back racism against black people. Key word being “almost”. I’ve seen a whole lot of sympathy for black people’s supposed plight, not much for the plight of others. You want to talk about age-old victims of racism, why not bring up the Koreans who had their businesses looted and destroyed during the 1992 LA riots? Why not bring up the Chinese who got raped in Nanking by the Japanese? Why not bring up white-Euro slavery in the Middle East?

And I’ll continue with another common saying, “Get over it.”

It’s not healthy to hold old grudges, especially when the current generation not only had nothing to do with it, but would definitely not repeat the sins of their fathers, grandfathers, great grandfathers, etc. So get over the fact that things were bad in the past, realize you’re living in a new time, the present, the golden years, and get the fuck over it. Don’t waste your life searching for those wasted years.

many blacks are on welfare because of the hand America dealt them. i’m going to give a very specific example to make my point. this is not how all blacks on welfare came to be, but certainly how some came to be, and maybe you’ll get a general idea of the bigger picture i’m trying to send.
Jim Crow laws, in case you’re unaware, were laws that heavily penalized blacks for doing minor issues – such as loitering. for example. Jim Crow laws are still around, to some extent, though not legally. by this, i mean: many blacks have been arrested for smoking weed, not because it is highly illegal, but because it’s an easy method of getting them into jail, which is the exact same ideal of Jim Crow laws. so let’s say a black man, a father, is arrested and sentenced to 6 months in prison. that leaves his wife to be a single mother, which results in her resorting to welfare because she cannot alone support her family. when the father returns from prison, he is unable to get a job because of his jail record, which leaves him unemployed for a while, and the mother still on welfare. i could go more in depth on how that situation could spiral, but that’s the main point of it. this happens very often.

Very often. Where? Which state? Which city? Is it widespread statistically? I can just as easily give a counter-example to make an opposing point. Such as the case of white firefighters in New Haven being racially discriminated against. I can do this all day. Try me. You wanna really make a point on all this? Show statistically that these examples of yours are not just small unfortunate instances in small unfortunate towns. I can just as easily make the point that this racial discrimination happens quite often against white people.
the other commenters on here made good points that i was planning to make myself.

And they’ve been addressed.
above i mentioned there are more efficient ways to learn about what i was discussing, and by that, i urge you to watch two documentaries: 13th and I Am Not Your Negro. i haven’t gone through your films to see if you’ve already seen them, but if you surprisingly have, i’d recommend you watch them again, because you might’ve missed the point. in case you’re unaware, 13th discusses how the 13th amendment and Jim Crow laws are still affecting the lives of blacks today, and goes in depth on why blacks “commit the majority of crimes,” like you mentioned above. I Am Not Your Negro talks about the history of blacks in America and how racism of the early 1900s affects our society today.

Well now you have my interest. I’ll see what I can do about watching those. That being said, you should already be aware that I have seen at least 1 film on this sort of subject, Ferguson. I’ve linked to it on your entry for Do the Right Thing. The other I have seen in relation to this subject is Burn Motherfucker, Burn!
you also keep talking about being “tough skinned.” being “tough skinned” is what led us to have this bully as a president. if being tough skinned means accepting discrimination or bullying, count me the fuck out. blacks have gone over 200 years discriminated against and targeted, lived through slavery and segregation, and your answer to that is to grow tougher skin? hell no. how about the discrimination and hate ends, instead?

Do you really want to go there? Do you really want to start bringing the whole anti-Trump bully-racist-sexist-Russian influenced-hack subject and how it relates to the supposed current state of racism? You do not want to go down that road with me buddy boy. You will find a new meaning of pain and humiliation in getting your ass handed to you on a silver platter. I would say bring it on, but that would go off on a big tangent, of which you’ll likely throw a bitch-fit and claim spam and try to get this entire entry taken down like the last cocksucker did with my The Red Pill review. Don’t even think about it. I’m more than prepared for that outcome.

Do us both a favor and keep this discussion away from Trump-bashing. Don’t let your liberal brainwashed colors shine that brightly.

Now, with that out of the way, tough skinned. I don’t think you quite understand what that means and what the benefits are. That doesn’t mean accepting discrimination and bullying, that means shrugging off petty insults, and learning not to take minor things too seriously (although this might not carry much weight from a film critic who bitches about minor petty stuff in films all the time). You know, the kind you hear all the time from elementary school all the way to college. If you want to fight against discrimination and bullying, it’s not tough skin you need. It’s wisdom and muscle.

And lastly, an end to discrimination and hate. At least we can agree on that. We disagree on how to get there. I’ve offered a step towards that solution, making this review make the point of it. And I’m openly challenging anyone who disagrees with me to offer a better way. Why should the word “nigger” be banned from the mouths of the white devil, as opposed to being spoken freely and in lighthearted fun among many who can handle it much as how they can handle any other curse word? All I’m hearing in response currently is, “Oh, the horrid dreaded past.” Fuck the horrid dreaded past. The horrid dreaded past has everything bad in it. The horrid dreaded past has people getting eaten in half by sharks at the beach, yet people still go swimming and making Jaws jokes. The horrid dreaded past has women getting raped by men (or by other women, you don’t hear much about that do you?), much less men getting raped by other men (or by other women, don’t hear much about that either?), yet both sexes have ways of coping and moving on.

I’ve known a couple girls who were victims of rape, who entered into an argument two guys were having about how rape shouldn’t be joked about, especially in front of rape victims, because they are emotionally scarred and can’t take it. One of those girls, came into the conversation at said something along the lines of, “I wouldn’t want to stop people from joking about rape. In fact, I can listen to and laugh at rape jokes all the time. Because it helps me, it stops me from being a victim. It proves that I didn’t let him defeat me. To me it shows that he did not destroy me. That I am alive and still going, and still going strong.”

That, my friend, is tough skin. Not staying as the victim the rest of your life. Licking your wounds, growing stronger, and moving on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If a rape victim can get over a horrible thing of the past, and have a relationship with and get married to a male, then why the fuck can’t black people get over this? Why is it that you and others believe this white guilt of the past thing should carry so much weight?




So I believe it’s worth mentioning at this point that jeremyfizzy wrote a review soon after seeing mine and making his first comment on it.

jeremyfizzy Review by jeremyfizzy

What begins as a relatively lighthearted yet authentic slice of life of an African-American in 20th century Brooklyn, ends in a gut-punching reflection of our society. Because, as well all know (or should know), the life of an African-American in America is not at all lighthearted.
The film bursts with energy that brings to mind Scorsese’s Mean Streets and utilizes it to drive forward a hard-hitting look at the deeply ingrained culture clash of urban America. Inevitably provocative and frustrating to the intolerant and close-minded while simultaneously educating and empowering to the open-minded and oppressed.
The most amazing aspect of this film is not what it says, but instead what it evokes its audience to say.

To which I responded and get in this brief exchange:

Me:

Because, as well all know (or should know), the life of an African-American in America is not at all lighthearted.

Ah, I see what the deal is now. Perhaps this will give a little more insight into my line of thinking:
letterboxd.com/gex/film/ferguson-a-report-from-occupied-territory/

 

  • i don’t think any BLM argument is valid when discussing this movie. the other way around, yes, but not here, since this movie came out almost 30 years ago, whereas BLM is recent. the hardships of blacks in America is systemic and goes further than the aspects you covered in that review.

Me:

Of course the the BLM argument isn’t valid when discussing this movie, that’s not the point I was making with that link. The point I was making is that I’m not an ignorant fucking racist. I’d expect you to treat me accordingly if you choose to comment on my Do the Right Thing movie post again.

  • you cancelled out the chance of me thinking you weren’t ignorant or racist when you threw around the n word in hopes of desensitizing it.

Me:

Then I guess you can blame a man for trying.




9:45pm, 7-10-2017

  • Arg. #2: It was merely an analogy. Maybe not the best one, I concede, but nonetheless the rest of my statement remains without response.

    Arg. #3: Again pointing out small things. I used Google merely to demonstrate the widespread and simple definition of the n-word. You cannot seriously doubt that Google’s definition is how most people would define the n-word. At the very least, you cannot also seriously doubt that most people would choose Google’s definition over yours (“ignorant dumb as fuck individual”).

    “Because the fact of the matter is black people do call light-skinned people niggers.” – This seems to be the thesis of this paragraph yet again I can’t do anything about / work with it since again it’s based on anecdotal experience. I have never heard black persons call white persons the n-word, nor have I heard of such an instance occurring in my area/circles. It’s probably because, again, it doesn’t make any sense. So on that front, I’ll withdraw as neutral.

    “The fact of the matter is that definitions for words do change overtime for any number of reasons” … “The fact of the matter is that the word “nigger” has been used subjectively by both white and black people (especially the latter) over the last 3 decades.”

    Okay I think I see the disconnect here, you’re mixing up the words and meanings of “definition”, “connotation”, and “subjective”. There is only one definition of the n-word as I previously stated and it is not subjective. Further, I highly doubt that this definition has changed significantly since its inception/popularization hundreds (?) of years ago (feel free to correct me on that). What has and continues to change about the term though, as you (rightfully) said, is its CONNOTATIONS – “an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning”. Again, if we can’t agree on the definition and connotations of the n-word (and the difference between the two), further discussion can’t be had.

    (P.S. I don’t mean to imply you’re a “dumbass” with my writing, as you probably know digital communication can be misleading)

Me:

@G
Arg. #2: It was merely an analogy. Maybe not the best one, I concede, but nonetheless the rest of my statement remains without response.

What, this part that was based on some ideas of your analogy?:

“To suggest that both sides should just drop it/forget about the ideas and impact behind the word and move forward by both using it similarly freely is not fair and not equal. It would be like if a person who paid hundreds of dollars and a person who owed hundreds of dollars were both told that their financial statuses have been erased/ignored and they can now share some kind of service/device dually together.”

Didn’t consider the passive-aggressive nature of my response, such as when I said, “can be resolved strictly based on people’s attitudes and social upbringing with how they’re taught and raised to act towards that word.”? The idea that it’s all about an individual’s attitude? It applies there. To make the point blunt, I’ve seen a white guy and a black guy together, both saying to each other, “My nigga!” and laughing with each others. Because their attitude is that this dreaded n-word isn’t to be taken seriously. And they’re perfectly fine with it. Wanna know what that demonstrates? Peace! Equality! Patty problem solved!
Arg. #3: Again pointing out small things. I used Google merely to demonstrate the widespread and simple definition of the n-word. You cannot seriously doubt that Google’s definition is how most people would define the n-word. At the very least, you cannot also seriously doubt that most people would choose Google’s definition over yours (“ignorant dumb as fuck individual”).

I don’t know about that. Chris Rock tends to think otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This seems to be the thesis of this paragraph yet again I can’t do anything about / work with it since again it’s based on anecdotal experience. I have never heard black persons call white persons the n-word, nor have I heard of such an instance occurring in my area/circles. It’s probably because, again, it doesn’t make any sense. So on that front, I’ll withdraw as neutral.
One of these days you’re going to see an old 80s or 90s film which displays that scenario.
Okay I think I see the disconnect here, you’re mixing up the words and meanings of “definition”, “connotation”, and “subjective”. There is only one definition of the n-word as I previously stated and it is not subjective.
Yeah, like how alcohol was defined as an illegal substance. Like how marijuana is an illegal drug worse than alcohol. Like how gay meant happy. Definitions change. Things change. Why not encourage them to change for the better?

 

“A word, any word, is not going to make or break a racist. Context is everything.”Deistman
Further, I highly doubt that this definition has changed significantly since its inception/popularization hundreds (?) of years ago (feel free to correct me on that).

Hundreds? Oh goodie, I’ve got something to work with.
A neutral noun in the 17th century, nigger had, by 1830, become an “influential” insult.

Quote from the book:
“I found myself sharing a hotel room with a white youngster from Mobile, Alabama. Late one evening, right as we were about to shut off the lights and go to sleep, this guy decided to tell me a final joke, one in which a reference to a ‘nigger’ constituted the punch line. As soon as that line escaped his lips, his eyes bulged while the rest of his face froze. He knew immediately that he had made himself vulnerable to a judgement that he deeply feared. Why had he done so? I suspect that he had become so comfortable with me that he ceased to see me in terms of race. Or perhaps he had merely granted me the status of an honorary white. Either way, the reference to ‘nigger’ seems to have suddenly made him aware anew of my blackness and thus the need to treat me differently than other acquaintances. I said nothing during the awkward silence that enveloped the room as his voice trailed away from the failed joke.
He apologized.
I do not recall whether or not I actually felt offended, but I do remember that from that moment on, the ease that had marked our budding relationship vanished.”

There you go.

Ah, gotcha! You didn’t think I was going to make it that easy for ya didja? Oh no, I’ve got a good one:

” On this date in 1997, The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)called for a formal dictionary revision of the word “nigger.”

The NAACP publicly requested Merriam-Webster to revise its dictionary definition of the word. The Merriam-Webster dictionary’s 9th and 10th editions (as well as online) define the word as “a black person… usually taken to be offensive.” NAACP President Kweisi Mfume said that definition “doesn’t say, Once used to describe a black person, a slur.’ It says, A black person.”

He said, “The NAACP finds it objectionable that the Merriam-Webster would use black people as a definition for a racist term.”

The Merriam-Webster dictionary now defines “nigger” this way, in part, as “a black person, usually offensive. . . . a member of any dark-skinned race; a member of a socially disadvantaged class of persons. It now ranks as perhaps the most offensive and inflammatory racial slur in English.” “Associated Press, October 17, 1997.

Of course it’s not a “significant” change, but still.
What has and continues to change about the term though, as you (rightfully) said, is its CONNOTATIONS – “an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning”. Again, if we can’t agree on the definition and connotations of the n-word (and the difference between the two), further discussion can’t be had.

Oh I know. I just wanted a good excuse to throw the Associated Press link at ya. Either way, definition, connotation, it still shouldn’t be taken so seriously, and I hope society eventually evolves into that and becomes all the better for it.
(P.S. I don’t mean to imply you’re a “dumbass” with my writing, as you probably know digital communication can be misleading)

You son of a bitch. How dare you not insult me!




July 11, 2017, 10:17am

The day will not come, in my lifetime at least, that the n-word will be taken “not seriously” amongst the general population. And in my opinion that only makes sense due to all of its entails. So do I agree on all of your thoughts about changing attitudes, upbringings, etc.? Of course, what decent and sensible person wouldn’t. But in reality it’s utopian fantasy, I can’t imagine how to even attempt to bring about such reform in something with so much baggage on a societal level (and probably beyond considering globalization and American dominance in popular media). But hey, good on you, keep right on, and go ahead in trying to do. Fight the good fight, ain’t that right?

(P.S. I’m probably done discussing here but good talk, props for remaining civil)

Me:

@G
Do the Right Thing.

As for how to go about doing it, you’re not going to like my idea, so I won’t say it, because that would take us on a big tangent you probably couldn’t resist getting involved in, unless the thought of it ends up angering you so much that you’ve had it up to here with me and are done.

Nice try with the bait. Too bad for you I never fall hook, line, & sinker. If your idea was any good you would have just said it. 😉

Me:

@G
Nice try with the bait. Too bad for you I never fall hook, line, & sinker. If your idea was any good you would have just said it. 😉

Ok, you asked for it. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

The way to forge a path towards not taking the word “nigger” so seriously can be done by not overcompensating the preach-factor in regards to its hurtful insulting nature. To let things play out naturally. In order to do that, there needs to be some reform in an important area of many people’s lives. The mainstream media, which includes the news, tv shows, and movies.

Enough of the biased news stories and how the cover murder and crime at a slanted angle which involves racism in the sense of pandering to and promoting white guilt. Enough with putting down the conservative angle (especially by you Disney ABC). Enough with the false implied statistics. Too many media outlets push forth this idea, which wouldn’t be so bad if they didn’t skew the reality of events to the extent that they do.

The other area that needs reform is the schools, which should be no secret now that many of them are liberally run and tend to crack down (unofficially) on conservative views, even though all views should have a fair say.

Those two main areas are responsible for causing racial divide and thus enforcing the taboo-stance of the word “nigger”. One could argue its the parents passing down such teachings to the children, but the youth are more influenced by the culture rather than by the parents. The parents are a big influence, but not the only influence. And the odds of changing the minds of the adults are less great than changing the minds of a youth who is soaking in all information freely, assuming he/she wasn’t taught to by into biases too early on.

Anyway, I think you know now why I didn’t say it. It’s a conversation that belongs in a different thread, in a different film entry.

Granted, the paragraph regarding the slavery today is more of a side-thing and not really relevant for the main-argument, so I don’t think it’s necessary to discuss it.

There’s obviously a lot of words with multiple definitions, but this one – unlike many others – have one very clearly racist tone and reference which makes it offensive in some regards. So when saying that everybody should claim it, it could be that people keep claiming it as a racist remark and thus continues to hammer in the oppressive message of the word. Because let’s be clear here, there’s obviously a lot of other words without the same connotations that could be used – so there’s really not a reason for you or me to reclaim the n-word when we could just as well use a word without any such connotations.

I’m not entirely sure what you’re referring to with ”both ways” here? Granted, in the context of intersectionality, obviously oppression could go in several ways but that’s not exactly what we’re discussing here. We’re talking about words rooted in centuries of racial discrimination, institutionalized racism and rooting back to slavery. If that’s something you’d say goes both ways in terms of the relationship being reversed – I’m very interested in what kinds of systematic racism against white people you see in the areas we’re discussing or how the historically rooted racial discrimination against white people looks like.

Me:

@Xplodera
There’s obviously a lot of words with multiple definitions, but this one – unlike many others – have one very clearly racist tone and reference which makes it offensive in some regards.

Now that’s not true. Gook is racist too. Haven’t ever seen it used in a positive way like nigger. Never seen anyone be called a cool gook, although I think that would be kinda awesome. Plenty of other words have one clearly racist tone that are more racist than nigger simply because, unlike nigger, they’ve never been used in a positive way. Sometimes you’ll hear “My nigga!”, but you never hear, “My gook!”.

So when saying that everybody should claim it, it could be that people keep claiming it as a racist remark and thus continues to hammer in the oppressive message of the word.

Or, more accurately, they are told to keep believing it should only be claimed as a racist remark and should only be viewed as oppressive and nothing else.

Because let’s be clear here, there’s obviously a lot of other words without the same connotations that could be used

Doesn’t that contradict your first sentence?

– so there’s really not a reason for you or me to reclaim the n-word when we could just as well use a word without any such connotations.

Like “nerd”? Like “queer”? Both used for similar oppressive contexts in the past, but now those who were oppressed by it now own it, and not only own it, think it’s cool.

“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Gotta learn to not get hurt by the word, especially if it’s not intended to hurt in the context it is used.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There’s punishing people for saying something with the intent to harm, in which case any word they say can be considered oppressive because it’s meant to be. But punishing those who say a word without intent to harm, treating it out of context, that’s politically correct bullshit. It’s just a way of promoting fascism under the guise of promoting tolerance and manners.

 




 

July 12, 2017

 

  • What the fuck have we (white people) been doing to black people lately that would justify this dumb fucking white guilt complex?

    do you have a Twitter account? situations that would answer this question are trending literally almost every day, unless you choose to ignore them. racial profiling is still very common today. just about two weeks ago, a group of black young adults were handcuffed for selling water publicly (www.vibe.com/2017/06/undercover-cops-handcuffed-black-teens-for-selling-water-on-national-mall/ ). if you think that happened for any other reason than the fact that they’re black, then you must be trying to be ignorant. this happens very often.
    how about the incessant cops killing unarmed, innocent blacks? i won’t even give you a source for this because it happens too often for me to need to prove my point. you know that. there was a massive surge in these murders that occurred this time last year that you can’t forget. (but i will link this source, which is the most recent of this situation i’ve heard of, and it’s even more mind-boggling than the average cop-killing: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4636036/Off-duty-black-St-Louis-cop-mistakenly-shot-white-cop.html ) what’s more significant is the fact these cops are rarely ever charged for their acts. Eric Garner’s murderer is free, because he is a cop. Philandro Castile’s murderer is free, because he is a cop. do i need to go on? it’s nepotism fueled by whites. this is why we’re upset that there is nearly no people of color in the GOP. i say “nearly,” because i didn’t fact check, so i could be wrong, but the only black that i know of in the GOP is Ben Carson, but he’s such an idiot it almost doesn’t even matter.
    how about the jail sentences for blacks being so much longer than those of whites, for the same crime (www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/opinion/sunday/unequal-sentences-for-blacks-and-whites.html )?

    it’s not necessarily what you, personally have or haven’t done, it’s what the whites in power have or haven’t done. that’s what the protests are for.

     

 

Me:

@jeremyfizzy
Oh I’ve been waiting for a response like this. Welcome back to the discussion. I thought you were out.

do you have a Twitter account? situations that would answer this question are trending literally almost every day, unless you choose to ignore them.

I have a twitter account, but I don’t use it regularly. And I find most trends to be stupid so I do usually just ignore them, whether they’re of a racist subject or something else. But twitter isn’t the only source for stuff like this.
racial profiling is still very common today. just about two weeks ago, a group of black young adults were handcuffed for selling water publicly (www.vibe.com/2017/06/undercover-cops-handcuffed-black-teens-for-selling-water-on-national-mall/ ). if you think that happened for any other reason than the fact that they’re black, then you must be trying to be ignorant. this happens very often.

I agree that this was petty and likely driven by racism (or at the very least racial profiling). That this was wrong. As for happens very often, what is “often” in this sense? How low would it have to be to not be considered to be happening often anymore? 0% isn’t realistic, because no race gets that sort of treatment.
how about the incessant cops killing unarmed, innocent blacks? i won’t even give you a source for this because it happens too often for me to need to prove my point. you know that.

First of all, how do you know they’re innocent? Second of all, how about the incessant cops killing unarmed (maybe innocent) whites?

 

 

 

 

 

If cops killing blacks happens often, then that’s also the case for whites. The difference is that the liberal news media has an agenda they like to push, and only highlight specific stories to fit their narrative. Stories of blacks getting killed by police tends to be the highlight on the news far more often than stories of whites getting killed by police, even though both happen, and probably more-so to the whites.
there was a massive surge in these murders that occurred this time last year that you can’t forget.

Okay, I’m assuming you’re talking about all those deaths that lead to the rise of #blacklivesmatter, and calling out cops for their racist discrimination and hate-crimes justified by wearing a badge, blah blah blah. Here’s the thing, most of that turned out to be bullshit, and #blacklivesmatter is built on lies.

 

 

 

See what I mean about twitter trends being stupid?
(but i will link this source, which is the most recent of this situation i’ve heard of, and it’s even more mind-boggling than the average cop-killing: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4636036/Off-duty-black-St-Louis-cop-mistakenlyshot-white-cop.html )

That white cop is a dumb fuck.
what’s more significant is the fact these cops are rarely ever charged for their acts. Eric Garner’s murderer is free, because he is a cop. Philandro Castile’s murderer is free, because he is a cop. do i need to go on?

I agree, cops are rarely charged for their crimes. That is a problem. But…
it’s nepotism fueled by whites.

Bullshit. This isn’t some racist problem, it’s a power problem, it’s a police problem, it’s a justice problem. Sometimes it’s racially motivated, but you’re thinking too small if you think that’s the big issue when it comes to the police force. Look at Serpico, Look at The Glass Shield. Or hell, even that tv show The Wire. A police force can be just as bad as the mob, a corrupt family who mainly looks out for each other, and punishes “traitors” severely. Granted, not all of them are that bad (it depends on how large they are and what city/country they are in), but for those who are, racism tends to be a minor issue, at best, in most circumstances. They protect themselves and each other, and know judges who will keep it that way. It’s difficult to fight against a cop (legally speaking, lawsuits and such), whether you’re black or white.
this is why we’re upset that there is nearly no people of color in the GOP. i say “nearly,” because i didn’t fact check, so i could be wrong, but the only black that i know of in the GOP is Ben Carson, but he’s such an idiot it almost doesn’t even matter.

Can’t we agree that, black or white, just about all politicians suck? I’d rather not go too far into that, but here’s another question. What percentage of blacks make up the U.S. population? How many people on average decide they want a political career as opposed to ANY other kind of career?
how about the jail sentences for blacks being so much longer than those of whites, for the same crime (www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/opinion/sunday/unequal-sentences-for-blacks-and-whites.html )?

Ah yeah, that. The article isn’t exactly detailed enough, such as mentioning whether or not these are repeated offenders, which would give a reasonable explanation as to why the sentencings are longer, which would also make sense considering how often blacks get arrested for crimes (see link I made above for more on that). And I do still need to watch 13th. But assuming that’s true, that a black man does commit the exact same crime as a white man (ignoring any pretense of repeated offender), there’s another question worth asking. Why do blacks statistically cause more crime than whites (again, link to pragerU vid above)?
it’s not necessarily what you, personally have or haven’t done, it’s what the whites in power have or haven’t done. that’s what the protests are for.

Or they’re just bitching and moaning because they bought into lies.

Just to have a second PragerU vid for support:

 

 

 

One second to the last thing:

 

 

 

 

 

And for the fuck of it, since you brought it up earlier, something related to a particular subject:

Be wary of what you hear about racism. It’s not always true.