RE: Pedophilia

So I’ve waited long enough trying to get a response to what is currently my most popular and controversial post.  Decided to see if the Free Speech group on Gab.com is up to snuff when discussing these controversial idea.  Well, I was met with the expected ad-hominem attacks without much discussion on the ideas/arguments presented in the blog.  But there were some that were a bit more fruitful.  Below is the post I made asking for a challenge (it also included a link to the original blog):

As for everyone else here in the Free Speech group, can I get any takers please?  I legitimately want challengers to tackle my argument and attempt to destroy it, logically (none of that ad-hominem BS).  The argument is: pedophilia shouldn’t be as illegal as it currently is under it’s broad scope.

Below are the discussions I’ve had, organized from a back-and-forth between me and one person, to the next exchange with another individual, and so on.


Children can’t consent. Children who have been sexualized by an adult are likely to suffer permanent and life altering changes to their body and mind.

 

“Likely” does not equal “guaranteed,” as there are factors involved in that, such as whether or not it was consensual, how mature the kid really is, if the adult was being reasonable and taking factors about the kid’s development into account, etc.

And your first statement is a lie. It’s not that “children can’t consent,” it’s that “many children can’t consent,” at least not in terms of being mature and wise enough to think for themselves and decide for themselves when pressured by an adult (though we should be debating what the definition of a child and adult actually is, if this continues).

As for “children can’t consent,” let me tell you why exactly that is bullshit. It is not that rare to learn that teenagers had sex with each other at some point. Don’t try to convince me otherwise, I’ve had friends who have discussed their experiences with that back in the day.

 

Your argument could be rephrased as “some people can hold their liquor, so driving under the influence shouldn’t be illegal.” Your premise is correct, but your conclusion doesn’t follow.

 

Well, I have to give you credit, that’s a good re-phrasal. The thing is, it’s not like drivers, drunk or not, usually give consent as to whether or not they want to get in an accident.

[…]

Ah. What I should have said is that it used to be ok for people to drive under the influence; as in there used to be no laws against it because people could be trusted to be responsible enough not to drive while drunk (at least THAT drunk). But eventually enough accidents happened to indicate that no, there are too many irresponsible drunkards out there, thus a law should be made against it. Despite the law, drunk drivers remain, and have arguably increased since (though that might be due to increased population; on the other hand, there’s the immigration factor to consider).

That’s about the laws being made due to irresponsibility of the driver. That analogy therefore would state that sex with minors is illegal because pedophiles can’t be trusted to be responsible. I can’t exactly argue with that in the general sense. However, if the conclusion doesn’t follow regarding drunk drivers in terms of, “because they can’t be trusted to be responsible individuals, drunk driving is illegal to reduce the likelihood of irresponsible individuals causing harm to others,” and equating that with pedophiles in place of drunk drivers, then I argue your conclusion isn’t exactly perfect either. Statistically speaking, if it can be shown that laws against drunk driving didn’t quell the number of drunk driving accidents on average, then it can be argued that laws against sex with minors wouldn’t fair much better.

I’m going to have to look for statistics on how laws against drunk driving affected the average number of drunk driving accidents (taking into account population growth, so more of a per 100,000 thing or something like that).

 

Ok, so I did some digging around regarding drunk driving fatalities. I wanted to go as far back as the 1950s, maybe even the 1960s, but the best studies I can find so far only go back to the early-80s. Anyway, the first source I found basically goes with the trend you would expect, which speaking from the analogy point of view, would appear to hurt my case.
https://www.responsibility.org/alcohol-statistics/…There’s also other charts showing that the rate these accidents occur varies wildly between states (California, Florida, and Texas are considerably higher than the others when it comes to DUI fatalities). So in a general sense, that seems to make your case, especially since underage DUIs play a factor into those statistics. However, there’s also the racial factor to consider. This is important because of culture clash, illegal immigration rates (and what their nationalities/race tends to be), and the fact that blacks and hispanics have a lower IQ on average compared to whites. I quote:
“Blacks comprise about 12 percent of the U.S. population, and Hispanics about 8 percent (Bureau of Census 1987). Research suggests that problem drinking and associated mortality rates are higher in these two minority groups than in the general public.”
https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/NNBCYL.pdfThere’s other sources that also add indians (aka native americans) among those about as likely to have DUIs. But anyway, the point I’m making is that such laws regarding the legalities of drunk driving wouldn’t need to be implemented if there wasn’t an increase in the black and hispanic population compared to the white population (the latter of which has been on the decline since the 1960s, and may no longer be a majority by 2040). I would argue a similar case when it comes to age of consent laws.One more quote from the same source above, which can also be used as an analogy for why it is difficult to gather relevant data on the subject:
“Political and legal considerations may further limit the availability of relevant data. Drunk driving is a criminal and civil offense that can have severe personal consequences for the driver involved, Moreover, the stigmatization of individuals accused of drunk driving can also taint the groups to which they belong. Under these circumstances, government authorities may be reluctant to collect pertinent information on specific ethnic groups, or they may decline to release data that has been collected.”

I think you’re agreeing with me, but you don’t say so. Thank you for admitting I have a point, even if it’s tangential. I’ll note that a major factor for the decrease in fatalities is better motor vehicle safety. I don’t think that it has anything to do with pedophilia, but it’s interesting.

 

Guess I should make my point more clear. Society should progress in such a way so as to make those sorts of laws unnecessary. You know, because a healthy and intelligent society would promote independent and responsible individuals. And yet society isn’t progressing in that direction. It’s regressing, because whites are becoming less of a majority, and as a consequence other races with other cultures and personalities and levels of intelligence are becoming more dominant. And that is the reason laws like this have become necessary, because they are dragging society down, and causing it to regress. For instance, the DUI rates in South Africa are higher than in the U.S., while they tend to be at their lowest in places like India and China. The latter countries are not where we’re getting the majority of our immigrants. Even Ireland has a considerably lower DUI rate than the U.S., and they’re notorious for drinking.

So yes, I’ll admit the laws are currently necessary, but with the caveat that they didn’t use to be necessary. And their necessity addresses the symptom rather than the cause. Because of that, in the long-term, the laws will eventually break down. Addressing the cause will require a more radical method of enforcement.

 

 

 




 

Family Guy Pedophile | Memes.com

Pedophiles do great harm to society by seeding evil in the minds of those who are the future. They should be generally culled from society one way or another. It is likely, much like the homos, that their behavior could be rooted in some genes. So it would make sense to screen embryos for what amounts to evil genes and just eliminate them in the zygote stage or some similar early stage of development. Until we take such measures humanity will continue to have a large vein of evil within it. Who will decide such things? Why not. Let’s just do it.

 

“Pedophiles do great harm to society by seeding evil in the minds of those who are the future.”

In what way? I’m not trying to be a smartass here, I want to see where you go when it comes to getting to the root on how you justify that statement. Specifics.

 

Damage to the psyche of the child which ripples throughout the life of the person. This, causes other effects on society by that individual not being able to live up to his or her potential and ability to establish a proper psyche.

It is well known that child abuse lowers IQ, it stifles life prospects, it can cause many behavioral issues and mental illness. For starters, you can look up Stefan Molyneux and consult any honest psychologist. I’m not here to educate you but I will provide you with places you can start as I don’t really believe you’re completely genuine or sane. If you can’t find anything for yourself from there then you really are a loon. Or maybe you’re genuine in which case that is hilarious.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/1709…

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/you-illumi…

As a person you start with a range of potential and your environment determines wherein that range you rest and solidify as you grow as a being. A sexual intervention on part of a pedophile in the life of a child is very destructive and harms development. He has not the right to do that. Not to mention that children cannot give consent due to the fact that they don’t have full autonomy due to their underdeveloped brains. They are lesser creatures who need guidance and protection so they can grow into functioning adult humans. It is one main argument against allowing 14yr olds to vote or toddlers to drive, their biology.

If you want to loosen restrictions on laws against pedophilia you’re probably just a degenerate retard who (at best) wants to hold a naive mercy for a condition that is indeed pure evil. -You’re probably a leftist to but I don’t want to assume too much.- If the behavior has major roots in genetics then we will erase it from the face of the Earth if there is any good in humanity. You can screen a very early embryo for nearly anything without destroying it. Here is something like the apparatus that will be used to erase many of the evils of mankind after we get a visionary dictator: https://blog.ivf.com.au/embryo-screening

 

Ok, started reading through these links. The first one, linking to ScienceDaily, basically states that there’s a clear connection between those who have been subjected to “child abuse,” and those who haven’t, when it comes to long-term brain development (the first 20 years are of significant importance). The connection being those who have been subject to child abuse are more likely to commit suicide, mainly because it affects their brain’s ability to regulate emotions and attachment.

Fine and all, but “child abuse” isn’t exactly limited to sexual mistreatment of a child. It can also involve physical trauma, emotional trauma unrelated to sex, or just neglect. Hell, I myself am a victim of this, because I was dropped on my head when I was a baby (in a parking lot). Plus I got hit by a car a couple years after that. I’m well aware I’m different from others because of that, lacking the ability to become too attached to anyone or anything (it has its pros and cons), among other side-effects. I contemplated suicide in the 4th grade, and have the occasional hits of depression and suicidal thoughts every 3-4 months or so. None of that fucking happened because I was sexually abused as a kid. Being molested (consensually) doesn’t necessarily cause that lack of myelinated nerve fibres in the brain. It depends on how physically and emotionally traumatic such events are.

Please don’t respond until I go through the other 2 sites. One of them might change my opinion.

 

Second link, Psychology Today, it pretty much says the same thing, except it focuses on the development of children up to about the age of 12, and takes into account the affect childhood trauma (which the article basically defines as “physical abuse or lack of parental involvement; physically abused or orphaned”) affects children negatively. The abused tend to have smaller amygdala and hippocampi, which leads to behavioral problems such as aggression, school-fighting, or ditching school. Again, not specifically linked to sexual trauma per-se, but even if it did, it’s not exactly focusing on “consensual sex” studies (good luck finding studies on that). One more to go.

 

Fertile Minds website. Is this a joke? It talks about embryo screening. It doesn’t say anything about childhood development. It’s rubbish.

Feel free to respond.

 

:1 wat

Yeah Child Abuse is a bit of an umbrella term so what is your problem with linking to a study regarding the effects of abuse? Is the molestation of a child not child-abuse in your opinion? Really, I don’t think this can go anywhere you’re obviously a bit committed to that weird position of yours and it’s probably rooted in justifying whatever happened to you as a child. Which is a bit of a drop in an already filled bucket that states children are very much harmed by abuse in its many forms.

Yes I provided a website that is for a firm that does IVF procedures for those who want to screen out genetic abnormalities and mutations in primitive human embryos some of which are known to cause myraid disorders in children. I obviously linked you to that after saying that if pedophilia, like homosexuality is believed to, has serious underpinnings of genetics that it will be possible to erase/filter it from The Human Condition altogether. Did that reiteration of what I said earlier fly over your head to?

You can’t even understand my position and as I learn about yours it becomes obvious… Note, I gave you a springboard I’m not your search engine. Clearly you were molested and have deep issues regarding it and facing the damage it did to you as the underpinnings of psychological damage spread about your personality as you grew. Many things you have certainly done and are doing to compensate for this. You have been damaged by that/those events. I am 100% sure of this and because I now know that you truly are disturbed and aren’t just a troll or a curious fellow I won’t be talking to you again. I wish you luck in tackling the monster you have within you and I implore that you seek help if you don’t think you can handle its wiles. Evil exists and yes it has a natural form, character, and destination altogether I call it Human Entropy. Bye.

 

“Yeah Child Abuse is a bit of an umbrella term so what is your problem with linking to a study regarding the effects of abuse? Is the molestation of a child not child-abuse in your opinion?”

Rape of a child is definitively child abuse. The alternative, that’s basically what I’m arguing for. I’d go into more detail to clarify the specifics, but you’ve already stated that you’re previous response will be your last response, so I don’t see the point.

“I obviously linked you to that after saying that if pedophilia, like homosexuality is believed to, has serious underpinnings of genetics that it will be possible to erase/filter it from The Human Condition altogether. Did that reiteration of what I said earlier fly over your head to?”

Whew, ok, I guess I did misjudge your intention with that link. That is something that goes beyond what I aimed to talk about, and has the potential for even greater side-effects than underaged sex, or lack thereof, could ever do. That’s a topic too big for this discussion.

“Clearly you were molested and have deep issues regarding it and facing the damage it did to you as the underpinnings of psychological damage spread about your personality as you grew. […] I am 100% sure of this”

You’re a moron. You’re a moron for using the “making an argument from incredulity” fallacy, the bandwagon fallacy, and once again resorting to the ad-hominem fallacy. You’re also a moron for making a false assumption by making this more personal than it needs to be. So for your information, though you won’t believe it because you’re not open-minded enough, no, I was never molested as a kid. And quite frankly, I’ve never had sex with anyone. I’m a virgin. So you can take your certainties and shove it up your dim-witted ass. Don’t let the door hit you there on the way out.

 

And for the record, you could’ve brought up some study the clearly linked psychological damage to molestation. But you didn’t. That would’ve been too interesting and enlightening for this conversation apparently.

 

Dude, google is your friend.
Or is it frenemy? idk Just go dude we’re not going to get anywhere.

 

I prefer DuckDuckGo myself. In any case, the reason I ask is because you must surely know of a source yourself, otherwise why be so steadfast in your position? This is one of the reasons I question this stance in the first place, I don’t think any definitive studies supporting your position exist, anymore than definitive studies supporting my position exist. Where could one even hope to find such studies?

So the best I could do is find cases of a similar nature that imply my position is correct. For instance, a study showing that youths having sex during the ages of 13-15 have long term social/psychological benefits, such as being less likely to have delinquent behavior (which might explain why I am the way I am, along with the physical head trauma):
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/0711…

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17367729

Now let’s see if we’ll get somewhere (I doubt it, but that might just be because I’m pessimistic).

 

 

 

 




 

 

People 18 or younger don’t really know that much, but, think they know everything. That’s why the laws are the way they are; to protect people who don’t know better.

 

Heheh, the same could be said about those over the age of 18.

 

And you’d be hard pressed to find ANYONE in their 30+’s who doesn’t agree that it’s a good thing, that there is some inherent stupidity that is unknowable at that time…

 

Of course that’s not a good thing. Of course I should expect/hope that everyone at that age should know better (just to be clear, know better than to take advantage of someone in a way that isn’t clearly consensual). The thing is, such expectations tended to be had of children aged 10 and older prior to the 1920s. What changed? Our understanding of biology and science and ethics? How do we know for sure we didn’t end up regressing, like how we’ve been doing in regards to male/female sexes over the past decade? Discussing it would be a good start, finding studies on the subject matter would be better.

 

I think the idea is to be cautious with our children. I’m not going to research this topic because it’s really not that interesting to me. Maybe you should. You wrote the article, dig in and educate us. The thing is tho, that most adults my age will be hard pressed to change their thinking on the matter as we will err on the side of caution especially when our children are the subject.

 

One should always be cautious of their children. Any self-respecting parent would be. The tricky part is the balancing act of how much independence (ie room for independent growth) one should give their child, and when to give it to them. It’s especially tricky because it varies based not just on the child at that point, but also on the family itself. Even the community.

 




 

I’ll take you on, because I won’t make the mistake of saying something that can be twisted into a perversion. Come at me.

 

Uh, I believe I was the one who asked you to do that first. Read my blog, pick out some point that you disagree with, and show me how/why it’s wrong. Be specific, not generalized.

 

TL:DR
Grown adults banging kids is wrong. Kids will be kids and explore with each other, there’s nothing stopping them from that and for the most part it’s handled by the family if at all. Education for those who have entered puberty is important, but supplying your kid the device with which to fuck themself is creepy and wrong. Kids under 15 should not have unsupervised access to television or the internet. That’s my position.

 

“I won’t make the mistake of saying something that can be twisted into a perversion.”

I just knew you were going to regret those words.

“Kids will be kids and explore with each other, there’s nothing stopping them from that and for the most part it’s handled by the family if at all.”

So I guess kids being kids and exploring each other and it being handled by the family means brothers and sisters doing a little incest is ok.

Sorry, I couldn’t help it. When someone gives enough rope to hang themselves with, it’s tough to resist kicking the table out from under them.

But anyway, being serious now. “Grown adults banging kids is wrong.” That’s true in a general sense. I argue that there should be exceptions. Because not having those exceptions allows for those laws/rules/ethics to be exploited in dangerous ways. People may say children are too vulnerable towards adults to allow for any adult-child relationship (in a sexual way) to ever safely work (by safely, I mean in terms of child development on an emotional/mental level). I say there exist children (I’m not saying they’re anywhere near the majority of cases, just that they exist) who are capable of exploiting vulnerable adults. Whether the adults are vulnerable because they are mentally stunted, physically stunted, because a child put them in that position or because they put themselves in that position; there do exist children who are definitely capable of taking advantage of adults in that way, and making the laws work even further towards that exploitation, just as women statistically take advantage of the courts in cases against men. Or have you heard that children raping adults is a thing? Because I can site some examples if you doubt it.

Those are some of the reasons why I hold the position I currently do.

 

I didn’t say it was ok. Only that it’s human nature. Table is secure. Exceptions are an excuse to create a slippery slope. Zero tolerance policies exist for a reason.

 

And that slippery slope didn’t seem like that big of a deal prior to the 1920s. Because up until then, the age of consent (officially established in the 1880s, in America) as 10-12 years of age, depending on which State you were in. In some countries, such as Austria, the age of consent is 14 (present day).

I think you should start questioning why it was determined that age 18 (again, this varies by State, I’m just going with that number for general reference) was the one to go with. Doesn’t seem right to me that an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old is a crime, while a 50 year old having sex with a 22 year old is perfectly ok.

Perhaps you could start mentioning exactly why zero-tolerance policies regarding pedophilia (or more specifically, statutory rape) do exist. What are those good reasons? And do zero-tolerance laws not risk causing more harm than what the slippery slope could inevitably cause? Why shouldn’t these things be judged on a case by case basis?

 

Post pubescent kids having sex is not wrong in a literal sense, however predators take advantage of children who don’t have a firm grasp on the gravity of the situation and the life long scars they may have to deal with. Also pair bonding will never get it’s proper chance if sex is trivialized. There are some major flaws to your logic, and the 18-17 argument is an obvious bait and switch.

 

I believe I already stated that your argument is correct in the general sense, that there are child predators who take advantage of children who don’t know any better and give them those lifelong (or at least considerably long) scars. But I also said that there are exceptions, and you’re not addressing those said exceptions. At least aside from calling them a bait-and-switch, which means nothing to me considering those exceptions are valid points. If you still don’t think that’s the case, then you’re going to have to explain why exactly that is without just calling it a bait-and-switch or something like that. You say there’s major flaws. Point out what they are and why they’re flaws.

 

It comes back to the slippery slope. Of course the 17-18 thing is bait and switch, it’s where the argument “but what about 16-18 pairs?” is birthed from, and just ratchet it back little by little until you’re talking about 9-18 pairs.

 

Well, considering that puberty doesn’t happen until the age of 12 (sometimes as early as 11), you can rest assured that I won’t be talking about 9-18 pairs. Lowest I’d ever go, just based purely on a biological science point of view, is 12, if even that.

That aside, I’m not exactly seeing any specifics here. You’re not pointing out clearly what these flaws in logic are. Unless it’s based purely on the slippery slope argument, where one could argue that, “One day it will be age 16, next day it will be age 15, then 14, etc.” Kind of like how one argues about the slippery slope of abortion. However, the “slippery slope” itself is an argumentative fallacy. You can’t hope to win a logical argument on those grounds.

 

Fair enough, and I wasn’t implying you meant anyone that young, however, the rates of early onset puberty in girls has been on the rise, so 8 and 9 year old girls getting their period is a thing. Still advocate for it?

 

Ah shit. Well now I’m interested in looking into studies that explain why children are beginning to have puberty 1-2 years earlier than what was normally shown a decade ago. Probably has to do in-part with the chemicals in the water (not being ironic here, Alex Jones was kind of onto something there).

I’d have to go through more trials of objective critique, but for now I’d just fall back on my initial position of 12 years at the absolute earliest (if even that, and this again depends on the child itself, let alone what an adult would find attractive; for all I know these early pubescent are ugly mutated freaks). Main reason being is that children need to learn about their own self, their own sexuality, their own wants and desires first. Similar to the reason why I would never advocate for sex-change surgery or hormones or shit like that at an early age, except that is actually worse because that can cause both physical and mental harm in the long-run, maybe even the short term.

And that’s the thing. Some children are faster at learning about themselves in that way than others, just as some children can learn math faster than others, physics faster than others, etc. The only real way it can be judged is on a case by case basis. At the very least, I think we can both agree that each child is different (speaking beyond just sexuality here, I’m also talking personalities, physical attributes, mental functions/disfunctions, etc.)

PS: Have you even read the blog yet?

 

No, I have not if I’m being honest. Yes case by case is the way to take this situation, however you can’t legislate case by case, that’s why there are age of consent laws. Maybe they aren’t perfect, but they’re designed to protect those who don’t fully understand their autonomy and the repercussions of abuse. Some people probably enjoyed being molested at the time, but look back on it with shame and disgust. That’s worth sparing.

 

The other side of the coin is that some people may have enjoyed being molested at the time, and not let it affect them at all later in life.

And those laws may be designed to protect those who don’t fully understand things such as anatomy and whatnot, but that’s not exactly helping them completely now is it? How do we know for sure that the alternative wouldn’t be a better option? Not saying I’m advocating for child rape or anything (that should be obvious, but some people on here assume otherwise without looking into the context). Rape should always be punished, no matter the age (that should be independent from age of consent, statutory rape aside). I am saying that the age of consent should be lowered.

In any case, this looks like it’s heading in the direction of “agree to disagree.” Or something like that.

 

You are the sumation of all the moments of your life. It’s impossible to not be affected. What you’re advocating by saying sex with a 12yo shouldn’t be a crime is the erosion of traditional family values. Traditions exist for a reason. They got us here. I like here.
As far as agree to disagree, yeah pretty much. Maybe age of consent isn’t perfect in it’s current state, but dropping those laws is just inviting the wolves to the hen house.

 

If only a study could be done for comparison. Like comparing how it was pre-1920s to post-1920s. Obviously, I could see why there would be hesitation (at the very least) in doing a statistical study in that manner. And doing the study by comparing different countries/cultures isn’t a good alternative either, at least in my opinion.

 

The reason things were different prior to the 20’s is mortality rates were higher and life was harder. Girls of child bearing age were expected to shore up the population. Thankfully things have changed.

 

“Thankfully things have changed.”

For now.

 

Exactly what do you mean “for now”?

 

Things can change again, sometimes reverting. Sometimes moving forward in unexpected ways. Ten years ago, it wouldn’t have been socially acceptable to have drag queens lecture kindergartners (let alone teach them sex ed; seriously, kids that age have better things to do, and should have better things on their minds). Now it is. That means either things are going to start getting considerably worse in a few years or less, or they’ll start to get better. I’m betting on the former, because things always have to get a lot worse before they get better.

 

I disagree… The pendulum is about as far left as it’s gonna get.

 

If you really believe that, then you obviously haven’t seen how bad it’s gotten in Sweden, the UK, Germany, and France. Let alone how bad it got in Germany during the 1920s.

 

I’m talking about the people who aren’t still living in 600 AD

 

We’ll know for sure by 2025 at the latest. I’m betting more on 2021.

 

Doubt.

 




 

It’s objectively immoral because children’s minds/bodies haven’t matured enough to handle or understand the situation. They’re powerless to stop an adult or to say no. A pedo takes advantage of this knowing full well what they’re doing. It’s the highest level of child abuse.

Pedos can live their lives, look at all hentai they want, fantasize all they want but the moment they act on their urges, their life is forfeit. No sex offenders list. No jail or prison. No rehabilitation. No second chances. Just an expedited death.

 

“It’s objectively immoral because children’s minds/bodies haven’t matured enough to handle or understand the situation.”

Objectively not true. There are some children who are the exception to the rule because they do have minds/bodies that do what you say they don’t. For example, there are children who rape adults.

“They’re powerless to stop an adult or to say no.”

Powerless to stop on a physical level, generally speaking, yes. To say no, not necessarily.

“A pedo takes advantage of this knowing full well what they’re doing. It’s the highest level of child abuse.”

No, a child predator takes advantage of this. There’s a distinction between a pedophile and a child predator which should be made. That’s like saying all men who aren’t virgins have raped someone. Not true.

 

Even if this actually happened, a handful of children raping doesn’t change the fact that pedophilia is highly immoral.

Their “no” is not gonna be respected by a pedo. Children are very guilliable and trusting. They can easily be coerced or pressured into something they don’t understand. That’s the main reason why they can’t consent.

Child predator is a synonym of pedophile.

 

That’s like saying “statutory rape” is a synonym of “rape.” I don’t consider those equivalent, and neither do various sources.

On that note, from my understanding of the definition of a pedophile, as defined by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition:
“An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.”

I don’t exactly see that as being the equivalent of a predator.

 

If a pedo is trying to normalize pedophilia or advocate for it or in pursuit of fullfilling their urges, they’re a child predator.

 

Yeah, and if someone advocates for pro-life and nationalism, they’re fascists and nazis and sexists and racists and all that other bullshit. You’re argument is the equivalent of that. Except it’s worse, because that’s literally not the definition of a child predator. That’s a political activist.

 

Dude, you’re talking about advocating for fucking little kids and being called a predator for it.

It’s not comparable to being an advocate for pro-life and being called a nazi for it.

I hope dems and the LGBT crowd back this “pedo is a sexuality” stuff. It will be the end of their party and political movements. So just keep advocating away.

 

You misunderstand (though I doubt your mental capacity to do otherwise). I’m not calling for the normalization of it. I’m saying there are exceptions here. That there are cases of adults screwing kids, consensually, where the kids don’t turn out all screwed up. In fact, sometimes it’s the other way around; with the kids coming onto the adults and screwing them. But the adult gets punished either way. It’s a problem of, “No matter what the context, the adult deserves punishment,” which doesn’t sit well with me. And if you’re unwilling to consider arguments for that, then we’ve nothing to talk about.

 

You asked that we don’t use ad hominem against you but yet you do when backed into a corner?

Considering your argument doesn’t mean I have to agree with it in any sense. You haven’t made any compelling arguments. Just false equivalences.

Yes, you’re making the argument for decriminalize/normalizing it at least in part. That’s what this whole thing is about.

 

Then let’s compare. You have argued that having sex with minors is wrong because their minds and bodies aren’t developed enough to handle it; the implication being this applies to ALL minors. You state that this is an objective fact (without citing a source to back it up). I argue back, objectively, that there are minors who do have minds and bodies that are developed enough to handle it, while keeping in mind this is a case-by-case basis that depends on both the child and the adult; an objective statement.

Your response to that is that (aside from attempting to redefine the actual definition of pedophile and equating it with child predator, of which there is a clear distinction definition-wise, which can be shown objectively) is that sex with minors is highly immoral either way. Well, that’s not quite how you word it; you worded it as child raping, which I think we can both agree is wrong, but that’s not what I’m arguing for here (unless you want to bring up “statutory rape,” in which case I am arguing exclusively about that). But anyway, assuming we’re on agreement that you intended to say that sex with minors is highly immoral no matter what, that’s a subjective statement, and you haven’t gone into the details as to why it is or isn’t immoral.

I made the mistake of not going into detail as to why I don’t believe it should be considered highly immoral when consensual sex is involved (and if the adult truly has no manipulative intent; that the adult has no intention of physically and mentally harming the child). Though I gave those details in the blog linked in the OP, which of course you haven’t read because you’re not interested in taking this discussion seriously, if you ever had that intention to begin with. So I’ll just repeat it here:

The golden rule, which multiple religions share to an extent: “Do unto others as you would do to yourselves,” or “Love thy neighbor as you would love yourself.” In other words, if you expect to be treated well by others, you should also treat them well. Be nice to others. Don’t do them any harm. There are some situations which could muddle that idea a bit when getting into nitty gritty details, but the long and short of it is that if an individual isn’t causing anyone any harm, they should be left alone.

Therefore, if the adult is not causing harm to the child through consensual sex, then it’s not immoral.

If none of that can be considered a compelling argument, than neither is anything you have said. And if you’re referring to my alleged ad-hominem against you when I said I doubted your mental capacity to understand (ie reason), that’s a way of goading you into trying to prove me wrong. You’ll either respond with an ad-hominem yourself, or you’ll show that you do posses an amount of reasoning capacity. If the former, then it will accelerate this conversation between us ending, and me potentially muting you. If the latter, then maybe things will get more constructive and enlightening.

 

You haven’t provided one source to any of the outlandish things you said. You’re the one challenging what’s accepted as established truth. I don’t need to back up that pedophilia is objectively immoral. It’s an established fact backed by decades of medical professionals saying that it is.

Pedophilia harms kids mentally and physically. Exceptions to a rule don’t change it or make a new one.

You asked people not to attack you as a person. Considering what you’re advocating for, that’s alot to ask for. You’re being a hypocrite for breaking your own rule.

I only bothered with this to make the counter argument so other people might read it. It’s obvious that you have a warped sense of morality and you’re just trying to justify it to others.

 

“You haven’t provided one source to any of the outlandish things you said. You’re the one challenging what’s accepted as established truth.”

Fair enough. Here’s one study stating that teens who have sex at an early age may be less inclined to exhibit delinquent behavior in early adulthood than their peers who waited until they were older to have sex:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/0711…

And another that hypothesizes (and concludes) youth would experience more positive and less negative affects following sexual intercourse than at other times in their daily lives:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17367729

As for studies demonstrating that it can be beneficial for an adult to have sex with a minor, good luck finding one of those. Although it may be possible if one were to go overseas to analyze such studies in certain countries where that is more legal. In any case, the studies above show that minors having sex has benefits in terms of mental development, potentially even physical.

“I don’t need to back up that pedophilia is objectively immoral. It’s an established fact backed by decades of medical professionals saying that it is.”

And they say the same thing about the Holocaust, and some places outlaw questioning it. And yet there are valid reasons to question it, some of which I’ve looked into, which provide very convincing arguments. This response of yours isn’t good enough. You do need to back it up if you wish to challenge my argument successfully. And if you have decades of medical professionals at your disposal, then this should be easy for you.

“Pedophilia harms kids mentally and physically. Exceptions to a rule don’t change it or make a new one.”

Science says otherwise. Exceptions make new rules (or formulas) all the time in those fields.

“You asked people not to attack you as a person. Considering what you’re advocating for, that’s alot to ask for.”

As Socrates once said, strong minds discuss ideas, weak minds discuss people.

“I only bothered with this to make the counter argument so other people might read it.”

Then consider my responses to you as intended to do the same.

“It’s obvious that you have a warped sense of morality and you’re just trying to justify it to others.”

Perhaps. But it’s also something I being brought up so it can be challenged. I want to see if it stands up to scrutiny. So far the primary thing being scrutinized is me, and not the idea itself.

 




 

Your question is mainly about the age of consent.

The age of consent is there to allow someone enough time to mature in order to lower the chances of predators taking advantage of someone.

This issue is a question of capacity. It is better to be cautious than allow room for predators to take advantage. That’s what predators do.

The goal is to prevent harm by predators.

 

But how does one arrive at that “age of consent” number? Especially when children have been shown to develop at varying rates; including maturity.

And I’m sure we can both agree that no one wants a predator to take advantage of a child (or of anyone for that matter, of any age). The issue is that sometimes the children themselves can become the predator. At which point they are the ones taking advantage of the age of consent laws (potentially for blackmail, let alone other reasons).

 

Don’t make a mountain out of a mole hill by arguing the minimal possibility. Those situations will almost never happen. Wringing your hands over that small possibility is a waste. Due Process will take its course if someone has a good, competant lawyer.

The number is arbitrary. How can someone ever predict someone else’s capacity via age? It’s too broad and specific language written in law defining all of that would never be decipherable. Something has to be in place and it is better to not allow room for potential predatory behavior to occur thus becoming a deterrent.

It may not always work at deterrence but what does 100% of the time?

You may have self-control but not everyone does or wants to exercise self-control.

For simplicity purposes, statute uses 18 (mostly). The law has to be used as a deterrent and punishment. It isn’t perfect but predators never sleep.

This is a proper use of law.

 

“Don’t make a mountain out of a mole hill by arguing the minimal possibility.”

Oh come on. Like laws don’t exist because of a minimal possibility. “Mountain out of a mole hill” is pure semantics. They used to say we shouldn’t take the PC police so seriously, not to make a mountain out of a mole hill regarding PC arguments during the 90s, and look how that’s turned out today.

If the law isn’t perfect, a way to make it more “perfect” should be sought out, while taking various things into account. For instance, statistically speaking, what kind of people are these child predators? Is there a predominant race in relation to them? A predominant religion? State? City? How about false accusations (or how often those are exploited; consider #MeToo as an analogy)?

And what of other countries that define such a law differently?

I’m more interested in the ethics/morals of it than the legalities, mainly because the legalities should serve the ethics, not the other way around.

 

The law must be written so as not to make it easier for predators to take advantage of people.

By using 18 (mostly) as the benchmark, it will act as a deterrent and punishment towards those who would engage in predatory behavior because it will be enforced and prosecuted.

The morality involved is preventing predatory behavior.

Ground cannot be given in favor of predatory behavior of any kind, it must be fought, not negotiated with.

Law cannot be perfect, that is a losing pursuit, it can be just or unjust. Due process exists to determine whether applied law is just or not. If it isn’t, the evidence, circumstances and facts will prove someone innocent.

Using minority possibilities is the same argument used by anti-death penalty advocates and many people buy it. It doesn’t represent a solution.

 

“The law must be written so as not to make it easier for predators to take advantage of people.”

True, but there are scenarios where the cons outweigh the pros (or at the very least don’t make enough difference to the point where such a law is pointless). It should just be stated that, “rape is illegal, end of story,” and everything would/should be honkey-dory. But no, they had to throw in the whole statutory rape thing, and an age of consent (which for the record used to be 10-12 years of age during the 1880s, maybe even up to the 1920s). Just making rape illegal wasn’t good enough, they had to take extra measures. Because, you know, society couldn’t be trusted anymore to raise kids to say no, or trust communities not to take care of their own and have police and courts handle the matters themselves on a case-by-case basis.

No more than you could trust people to use guns responsibly. That’s why there are gun-free cities and states (and even countries). And look how well that’s turning out for places like the UK, and Chicago, among others. That certainly stopped gun crimes (let alone crimes that guns would act as a deterrent to) didn’t it? That’s sarcasm, just in case that needed to be pointed out.

Sticking to more basic functions tends to be more beneficial, such as just saying “murder is illegal,” which you would think would act enough as a deterrent towards people with guns who want to kill other people. Because the laws aren’t exactly acting as a barrier towards the degradation of society. What good is the law if society is becoming rotten? Because sooner or later, a rotten society will make rotten laws. Then what good is the law?

You could argue that “rape is illegal” is an imperfect law. After all, there are false rape accusations. The side-effect of statutory rape (ie age of consent) laws make such false accusations even more deadly. Many would be crucified just from those accusations alone, whether they are true or not. They even used such a tactic against Donald Trump during the 2016 election. Granted, there are times where the evidence will show that this isn’t the case, but sometimes that’s not enough.

By using examples of similar laws as a comparison (such as gun ownership laws and their various forms, among other types of laws meant to deter crime such as violent crime), it can be argued that statutory rape laws do more harm than good.

 

There are too many variables in the human condition to legislate morality. However, there are situations in which law, with some arbitrary elements, is necessary to be applied. Not in all areas nor too broadly.

Consent laws have already been re-written over the years to allow for accommodation of circumstance-in the interest of fair justice and due process.

I maintain that the arbitrary consent benchmark is not as draconian as some people think it is.

It is a necessary arbitration in law used with more mitigations on behalf of society by preventing a predatory instinct in some people from doing harm by prosecuting them.

It is a just use of law with the best effect possible.

 

“It is a just use of law with the best effect possible.”

I’d rephrase it as a law made with the best intention possible. I have already had my say on why those good intentions cause harm that can be avoided. You’re basically repeated what has already been said, none of which directly addresses my earlier statement(s) in such a way as to challenge me to say them. And I’m not sure what else I can say without repeating myself. Each child is different, some mature faster than others, and thus some become mature enough to be considered adults earlier/later than others. And my opinion is that making such laws, considered non-draconian, causes more harm than good.

The compromise, in my opinion, should be, “Let the parents decide.” I don’t mean them deciding on a law, I mean on them deciding on what is in the best interests of their children in such matters, while also having the consent of the child himself/herself. I think we can both agree that in the majority of cases, the parents will say no. But there will be cases where they will say yes. I would know, I’ve seen examples of such cases, where the kid was fine with it (the kid came on to the adult in one such case), the adult was fine with it, and the parents were fine with it, but later on the adult got arrested and incarcerated when others found out and informed the authorities. It seems to me that in that situation, common sense would dictate that those two should just have their relationship until it eventually breaks apart. Or, and this is the difficult outcome for some to fathom, they stay together happily for many years.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/houston-… 

Not to mention studies showing that having sex at a young age (teenage years, 13-15 years of age), not necessarily with adults mind you, can actually be beneficial towards their development, making them have a healthier social life in the long-term.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/0711… 

 

You’re failing to see human nature. Humans will gravitate toward the destructive side of their nature if given the chance.

You’re arguing to give more people that chance but you don’t see it. You’re excusing potential predatory behavior by masking it with variable consent.

The intention of the law is to prevent predatory behavior. It will prevent that behavior more than people will be able to engage in it through prosecution, prison, sex offender registries and intervention.

It will deter potential predatory behavior by planting the thought of consequences in the minds of those who consider those actions. Nothing will stop man’s destructive tendencies but effective consent laws such as 18 (mostly) as the age of consent will establish boundaries that are needed to prevent destructive behaviors from spreading.

 

I agree, human nature does tend to cause humans to gravitate towards their destructive side. However, to turn that argument back around onto you, this also includes children, who are arguably more aggressive in nature than adults are. And they can exploit these very laws you deem necessary to act as predators on adults. As mentioned earlier, false rape claims (and how much worse they are when it’s a child making the false rape accusation), and the damage that can cause on adults who did nothing wrong. By putting up such legal boundaries, that breaks down others.

While there’s no agreeable percentage as to how often false rape vs. real rape accusations occur, false rape accusations do occur far more frequently than actual rape accusations. And the reasons for false rape accusations can be any of these reasons (among others):

• Mental Illness
• Depression
• Profit/Financial Reasons
• Create an Alibi
• Attention
• Sympathy

Now tell me that at least half those reasons wouldn’t apply towards a teenager, especially in this day and age when they demand attention (particularly online on social media), when there’s a promotion of victimization (thus a want for sympathy), many with mental illnesses included Trump Derangement Syndrome (I’m starting to believe that’s related to some real medical illness) and transgenderism (that I also believe to be an illness the majority of the time), and depression caused from all of the above, among other things.

Boundaries needed to prevent destructive behaviors from spreading? Statutory rape laws are ticking time bombs in that regard in this context.

 

You’re jumping around too much. Let’s stay on one topic. Your blog post is asking about the age of consent in law.

It is a question of capacities, which are too variable in the human condition to write laws navigating through them. Some arbitration is necessary in the interest of upholding order.

18 is not a bad age to draw the line. It allows a reasonable amount of time for someone to develop enough mental capacity to make reasoned, informed decisions on their own.

Arguing minority possibilities is not sufficient to strike down the current accepted (in most states, by law) standard age of consent.

Aberrations surrounding the law’s application fall under due process. Cases go to court and they are adjudicated based on their evidence, facts and circumstances.

 

“It is a question of capacities, which are too variable in the human condition to write laws navigating through them. Some arbitration is necessary in the interest of upholding order.”

Which is why I suggested earlier it should be scaled back to just making “rape” in general illegal, kicking out the “statutory rape” part (or even downgrading it to age 14), and letting the parents be the deciding factor along with the child who have their own desires. That addresses the variabilities to a reasonable extent.

“18 is not a bad age to draw the line. It allows a reasonable amount of time for someone to develop enough mental capacity to make reasoned, informed decisions on their own.”

Generally true, but I’ve already addressed why it may not be unreasonable to lower that number. I’d just be repeating myself if I brought up those points again. But I can add one thing I didn’t bring up before. How do we know laws such as this, and the societal norms that have spawned from, and been built upon, such laws haven’t had a detrimental effect on society? For instance, coddling a child too much ultimately makes them less independent in their later years; and laws such as those encourage, and increase the likelihood of, that happening to the average child. 18 may only sound like a good age to draw the line simply because we’ve been trained to think that way because of conclusions drawn from flawed studies that we take for granted regardless (more on that later). Been trained so much that many react violently to just even discussing the alternative, as anyone can see from the responses the OP has gotten.

“Arguing minority possibilities is not sufficient to strike down the current accepted (in most states, by law) standard age of consent.”

Ah, the accusation of the “small number statistics” fallacy. That would be a good point, if there were statistics to back your position. Plus that same argument you just made could be used during the 1960s civil rights movement when it came to giving rights to minority blacks. Or even further back, minority Japanese, or minority Irish. Except in this case it applies to all children of all races.

Plus you base that accusation upon the “bandwagon” and the “appeal to tradition” fallacy. Using tradition/cultural belief as the basis for the argument. I’m more interested in the arguments and studies used to reach those standards, because I’ve seen cases (not necessarily related to age of consent laws) where such standards were set due to faulty studies and arguments. One only has to look at the Hays Code, or even aspects of climate science, let alone certain historical events, to show how that line of reasoning can be faulty.

“Aberrations surrounding the law’s application fall under due process. Cases go to court and they are adjudicated based on their evidence, facts and circumstances.”

You need me to point out cases where those who were falsely accused still got sentenced and punished, for crimes they didn’t commit? For reasons similar, if not entirely related, to age of consent laws?

 

You’re looking for justification to enable predatory behavior. You don’t think so but that is what would happen if your ideas were to become implemented.

Bad ideas like this will cause much harm to people that could have been avoided.

https://upmic.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/lf8-argument-from-incredulity.png

 

Well now it seems you’ve run out of ways to attack my position in a logical manner. You’re utilizing the following fallacies:
* Slippery slope

* Argument from incredulity: denying my claim because you refuse to believe it could ever be true under any circumstance.

* Appeal to consequences: the assumption that my premise is false because of the alleged harmful consequences that may follow, even though I have mentioned how current age of consent laws have their own harmful consequences.

* Argumentum ad baculum: attempting to incite fear over what may happen should one carry this line of thought.

* Argumentum ad populum: you’re appealing more to sentiment than to reason at this point.

* Begging the question: justifying elimination/downgrading of age of consent laws will cause more harm than good. But would the elimination of such laws actually make things worse, considering how things were pre-1920s?

* Composition: incorrectly assuming that elimination of age of consent laws will increase the number of child predators nation-wide, when in fact other factors independent of that law do exactly that (illegal immigration).

* Confirmation bias: ignoring facts I brought up so you can make a case based on your own personal beliefs.

* Excluded Middle (aka Black & White): Implying my propositions can only lead to predatory behavior.

* Straw Man: Misrepresenting my argument to be pro-predatory, when I have explained I am against rape and taking advantage of someone to their detriment.

 

 

 

 

PS: There’s a chance this post might get updated, should the conversations continue, or if a new one starts.  Though if there’s too many, that would be cause to create a new post altogether.  Regardless, anyone wants to challenge my position, feel free to do so.

Star Wars: Goddamnit that’s fucking it!

A Long Massive Intro

“If Hollywood isn’t going to risk telling new stories, the least they could do is not fuck up the old ones.”

I tried.  I tried with considerable effort to avoid getting back into discussing this film.  I did a review of this film months ago, and I may have left a couple things out, but I had my say.

But no.  Nope.  Nuh-uh.  Social media, youtube, review sites, blog sites, articles, all of them just wouldn’t let me let it go.  The shit they kept saying, the clashes, the responses and backlashes from those who liked the movie, and those who didn’t.  And on top of all that shit, the goddamn movie studios paying off critics and websites to take down or altogether prevent the publishing of negative criticism.  Rotten Tomatoes is the holy grail, the end-all-be-all of opinions that everyone must live by or be damned (because it’s always safe to throw all your eggs into one basket).

Jesus Christ.  So much bullshit that keeps building up, and just made me despise the movie, and the studio and those behind-the-scenes who made the film, even more.  They’ve done more damage than the plot holes and logical fallacies ever could have.  And I…

am…

PISSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Continue reading

It’s Not Just A Movie: The Importance of Films

It’s true that there are many, many movies that are “just movies,” entertaining enough but with little weight behind them. And there are many movies that are nothing more than complete wastes of time and space. But the ones that really grip people’s imaginations, the ones that inspire passionate discussions and debates, the ones that are outright adored by people from all over the world and from every conceivable background…these speak to something much deeper. They’re not “just movies.”Silentology

Introduction

“Dude, chill out, it’s just a movie.”  “Don’t take it so seriously.  It’s just a movie.”  “It’s no big deal, it’s just a movie.”  “It doesn’t mean anything, it’s just a movie.”

When I hear lines like that, half the time I wanna smash these people into the cement and curb-stomp them into oblivion.  The other half of the time, I’m thinking, “Yeah, they’re probably right, it’s no big deal, no need to get worked up over something like this.”  And to be honest, I believe either response can be appropriate depending on the context (I exaggerated on the curb-stomp part for those who can’t tell when I am or am not being serious, but punching them is ok, especially if they’re women).  Because when someone says, “It’s just a movie,” that’s like saying, “It’s only a book,” or, “It’s only a game.”  Or to bring up the point more bluntly, that’s like saying to someone who’s read/watched William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “Why are you analyzing Hamlet?  Dude, it’s just Shakespeare.”  To which many literary critics would respond as articulately as possible, “Fuck you you tasteless twat!”  You mine as well as say the works of Homer, Aristotle, Mark Twain, Orson Welles, among others, don’t really amount to anything significant.

But here’s the thing.  For some people it does mean something.  Sometimes it’s more than that for a lot of people.  All of the above (movies/games/books) acts as a form of entertainment, and/or escapism, and/or education.  And often, one partakes in this entertainment with others, friends and family.  Hell, sometimes they partake in it with complete strangers.  If you sit on the bleachers of a sports event, or in the middle of a crowded movie theater, or walk around at a Con, how many around you tend to be people you know?  How many are strangers?  People you don’t know, people you may not want to hang around with under other circumstances, and yet here they all are for a common purpose, to be entertained by something you would find entertaining.  It’s an experience.  An experience where you forget about the problems in the world, escape into the world the film portrays, and maybe even discuss the events in the film after the show is over with those strangers.

“Wasn’t that scene awesome?”  “Oh, that guy had it coming.”  “What do you think this means?”  “Where do you think things will go from there?”

If you’re not careful, you may become a nerd.

So when someone says, “It’s just a movie,” they mean it shouldn’t be taken (that) seriously.  And why shouldn’t it be taken seriously?  Well, I’ll bring up each and every argument made towards that statement, and put them through the meat grinder.

 

 

Argument #1: It’s just entertainment.  Analyze it too much, and you’ll take the fun out of it.

This argument is directed towards two areas: at the individual who analyzes the film, and at those who read/listen to the analyst.  For the former, the risk is that the individual will ruin the film for his/herself.  For the latter, it’s that the individual will ruin the film for others (for purposes of this writing, let’s assume there are no spoilers revealed because everyone has seen the movie).

In regards to the former, this depends on the individual.  Honestly, analyzing a film can be like analyzing comedy, determine how/why a joke is funny and what philosophical/psychological links that are involved with making someone laugh.  Honestly, I was scared just dipping into such subject matter in my Philosophy 101 course.  I don’t want to analyze comedy because that does risk me being analytical about all comedy and focusing and the how and why I should consider it funny, and how/why other people are finding it funny.  Thus I could end up spending my time thinking about it critically rather than just having fun with it.  Thus one could have films like It’s A Mad Mad Mad Mad World lose their enjoyment if they ponder stuff like why it’s considered funny to have this idiot set off explosions in a basement that he and his wife are locked in, rather than laughing at the absurdity of the moment.  Or even slasher films, where someone gets killed in an over-the-top manner which delights audiences (most likely because they couldn’t wait to see this dumb sack of shit character get wasted by the disfigured fuck wearing a mask).  Or a John Woo shoot-em-up flick from the 80s or 90s.

It’s like Bruce Lee said, “Don’t think!  Feel! It’s like a finger pointing away to the moon.  Do not concentrate on the finger or you will miss all of the heavenly glory!”  So one should be sure to have fun with a film first and fore-most.

Ah, but then there comes the other side of the coin.  After all, being analytical allows one to pick up on the messages/lessons meanings within the film, stuff that can affect one’s life for the better (or at least one would hope).  For instance, the Bruce Lee quote mentioned above.  It’s a good life lesson is it not?  Yet how would one appreciate it if they weren’t at least somewhat analytical about the movie?  And at the same time, it’s a line that encourages one to not be so analytical to the point where they would miss out on the “heavenly glory.”  Thus through analysis, one learns they shouldn’t overdo analysis.  The level of fun one can have with a movie can increase when they become analytical about it.  Take the reviews I made for The Dark Crystal and Ghost in the Shell for example.  The Dark Crystal is a film I have always enjoyed on a surface level ever since I was a child, giving no thought as to the in-depth meanings one can find in the film if one reads into it.  And yet when I did read into it when I got older, it only enhanced the experience, and putting my thoughts on the subject online has encouraged others to check the movie out, if not give it a second look to more fully appreciate it.  Ghost in the Shell, on the other hand, was a film I didn’t care for too much on a first watch, but then later regarded it as a masterpiece when I did read into it, analyze it, and find all these meanings within it.

But of course it is possible to have one’s enjoyment of a film lowered the more they do read into it.  Lately the focus of that has been The Last Jedi, but that’s a tale for another time.  There is an anime film called Origin: Spirits of the Past, which I initially enjoyed upon a first watch, partly because I didn’t know what to expect, and was happy to let the film surprise me.  But after an initial watch, the re-watch-ability of a movie often tends to rely on finding depth to it by reading into it (with the possible exception of action films where you just want to rewatch sequences of bullets flying, of explosions, of people/things beating the hell out of each other, etc.).  In the case of Origins, it just came off as just another, “Rainforests are to be respected, stop fucking them up for the sake of technology, m’kay?  Or else mother nature will fight back, m’kay?”  Plus one could notice things they missed before, which could make a film worse for them just as easily as it could make it better, it just depends.

In the end, the argument, “Your analyzing will kill the pleasure to be had,” is bullshit because analyzing a film can enhance the viewing experience.  And if it does the opposite, then maybe the film wasn’t as good as you first thought.  After all, there are plenty of other films out there to experience that you will find to be great.  Besides, it’s the truly great films that stand the test of time precisely because film critics analyze it and find it to be worthwhile then and now.  It’s how films like The Searchers are remembered, how Star Trek is remembered, the original Star Wars trilogy, The Godfather, etc.  They’re not remembered just because some people watched it and thought, “That was nice,” before moving on with their lives.  Hell no.  They’re remembered because they impacted lives in some way.  Because there was something to be had along with the entertainment.  The analysis can give you insight into your life.  And it can allow you to respond more fully to all that a film (and those who created it) has to offer.

Which brings me to the whole “You’ll ruin the film for others,” argument.  Anyone who makes that argument is a candy-ass.  Mamby-pamby whiny overaged-tit-sucking vermin who have no sense of pride, of independence, or of having their own opinion they’re willing to defend.

“I liked the film.”

“Well I thought it sucked!”

“Great, now the film sucks and my life sucks!  Boo-fuckity-hoo!”

You mean to tell me that you’ve seen a film that you enjoyed greatly, then read some schmuk’s review online where they give a compelling argument as to why the film isn’t great and why they didn’t enjoy it, and you bitch about it because this convinced you that the film is worse than you thought and therefore can’t enjoy it as much as you used to?  If that happens, either the reviewer was making some really good points, or you’re too flaky for your own good.  I mean, for crying out loud, you act like every movie you saw as a kid you enjoy just as much if not more-so when you got older.  Fuck off.  There are several films I enjoy that I have seen negative reviews of which, while some do bring up good points, I enjoy the film regardless of the negatives pointed out.  For example, I enjoyed Mad Max: Fury Road, yet still found this negative review delightfully entertaining, and I still watch and enjoy the film regardless:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hell, I’ve even convinced a film critic or two to appreciate a movie more thanks to the insight I provided on the movie.  Case in point, Forest Taylor of Slaughterfilm learned to appreciate the film Angel Heart (will get around to making a review for that at some point) after listening to my insights:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your tastes in film can change, whether it’s because time affects how you see and enjoy things, or because the opinions you subject yourself to affect how you see and enjoy things.  Here’s a scary thought: what if a film affects how you see and enjoy things?

 

Argument #2: It’s just entertainment, it’s not telling you to live your life this way.

We should take the ethics of movies seriously precisely because the people who make them don’t want their ethics to be taken seriously. Because movies are pervasive, because they reach us when our guard is down, because we unconsciously relate so many choices in our lives to the stories they tell, their influence is like that of folk tales three hundred years ago. — http://www.spectacle.org/1295/movintr.html

That may be true for a good portion of films, though that depends on the film, who’s watching it, and how impressionable they are.  But let’s just ignore the fact that documentaries exist which tell you how to live your life (ex: Supersize Me says don’t eat fast food, especially McDonalds, Citizenfour says don’t trust the Internet, smartphones, or the NSA, End of the Line says stop eating fish), just for a minute.  Let’s ignore those propaganda films like Tell Your Children (aka Reefer Madness) which say you shouldn’t smoke weed or you’ll become a homicidal maniac.  For the sake of argument, let’s just say we’re only talking about films which aren’t blunt in their messaging, that seem to exist more for the sake of the story and the entertainment value than anything else.

So, Black Panther (a film I still haven’t seen, in case you were wondering) was hyped up prior to release.  Many were excited for it, and many were told to be excited for it.  It’s almost like people were expecting some Return of the Jedi event from the 80s or something, or the arrival of the first Star Wars prequel, or the arrival of The Force Awakens.  But unlike those movie where it was all about the arrival of pure sci-fi/fantasy escapism (which has it’s own nerd culture), Black Panther’s arrival was touted as a cultural revolution (an over-the-top reaction in my opinion, but it’s the narrative most mainstream outlets want to go with, so…).

“So it can serve as the forefront of a rallying cry to actually come together – as a people, as a culture – to celebrate us, to celebrate our skin, to celebrate Africa, to celebrate who we are in 2018.”Kristen Thompson

 

 

 

 

 

In other words, a film hailed as a black people’s movie that will have a positive effect on the black community, much less anyone else of any other race.  That’s right, the greatest thing since the first on-screen interracial kiss on Star Trek, the greatest thing since Sidney Poitier bitch-slapping that white racist in In The Heat of the Night.  A film to signal the age of empowerment.  Try saying, “It’s just a movie,” to them and you’ll get labeled racist.  Try telling them to chill and they’ll throw grape juice at you.  Clearly, from critics to newscasters, many promoted the idea that Black Panther stood for something significant in American culture, and thus many would state that it is more than just a movie.  A movie that will impact lives (though that’s advertising outside of the film, not within it).  For all I know, the film succeeded in doing just that.

Then there’s those controversial films from the 70s.  Dirty Harry, Death Wish, Walking Tall.  If nothing else, Dirty Harry’s impact involved people constantly quoting the line, “‘Do I feel lucky?’  Well do ya, punk?”  And Death Wish was deemed controversial because some felt it would encourage many to become vigilantes, more-so because the film was released at a time when the crime rate was high and many didn’t think the police were doing enough (a climate which helped Dirty Harry become popular, as many enjoyed seeing a cop who just got things done without always doing things by the book).  And Walking Tall, encouraging people to carry a big stick (ala Theodore Roosevelt), stand up for yourself, and get things done yourself to make the community better, even if that means going against officials.

 

 

 

Each of those films had their fair share of making an impact on people through the actions of the protagonists, the lines they said, and the messages one can read within the film.  Hell, you could watch the movie Cinema Paradiso and know that film can have a major impact on one’s life, because that’s basically what that movie is about.  Films that can teach one morals, dialogue, demonstrate how certain things work, showcase relationships, show different perspectives, offer greater understanding of people and places around the world, enhance the imaginations, find role models, offer unique forms of education, among other aspects of enlightenment.  Whether you like it or not, films can influence one’s opinion, maybe even their life.  Films can inspire.

 

 

 

Argument #3: It’s just entertainment, it’s not history.

Cinema has perhaps the greatest potential to be the most effective mass media instrument. Besides proving cheap entertainment for masses, it can easily become a means of mass instruction and mass education. — Siddhi Bahadkar

The excuse for artistic license to overrule reality for the sake of entertainment.  This is something that mainly applies to films based on a true story.  A reason to distort the truth.  This is something I addressed in an earlier blog entry titled On the topic of films “based on true stories/events”  Long story short, distorting truth in a film that is made for entertainment can have real-life consequences which can be infuriating.  Distorting the truth in the film Remember the Titans got the real-life Herman Boone to be glorified for acting in ways he didn’t.  Distorting the truth in Selma caused a woman to be outraged at the false depiction of LBJ, and thus write her own opinion article on it.

On the other hand, distorting history can be fun if it’s obvious history is being distorted.  For instance, how Hitler died in Inglorious Basterds.  Or the stuff depicted in History of the World Part I.  How about anything Monty Python did?

When it comes to films based on true stories, one should take the “true story” aspect with a grain of salt, go ahead and be entertained, and then do a little research to see how accurate the film is.  If nothing else, it offers an excuse to learn some history.  Learning what a film did right and did wrong in terms of historical accuracy can enhance the viewing experience in its own way.

 

Conclusion

The “It’s just a film” excuse is bullshit.  Films have too much of an impact on people’s lives to be considered that irrelevant.  That’s like telling a Raider’s fan, “It’s just a game.”  If something can bring out that much passion in an individual, then it’s more than the sum of its parts.

Regardless of what people may say, your opinion matters, especially if it affects just one life.

And the constructive criticism goes both ways.  I expect myself to show deeper insight and appreciation (or bash it for being the dumb piece of shit it is) for a film just as much as I expect others to do the same towards films I have experienced myself.  Case in point, as I stated earlier, I got Forest Taylor of Slaughterfilm to gain some more insight into Angel Heart.  He did the same for me, with his analysis of Predator.

 

“Cinema has become a powerful vehicle for culture, education, leisure and propaganda.” — Vikas Sha Mbe

Also worth reading:

http://www2.gsu.edu/~jougms/Justamovie.htm

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/why-movies-still-matter

https://thoughteconomics.com/the-role-of-film-in-society/

http://www.stuartfernie.org/filmsimportant.htm

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/screen-time/why-is-it-important-for-kids-to-see-consequences-in-movies

 

 

Edit (7-4-2018): Got a counter-argument for some of the stuff I said in this post, sort of.  My initial comments in a thread on the Slaughterfilm website (which, admittedly, is what got me to make this blog post in the first place):

The Last Jedi “It’s just a movie, calm down.”

Fuck off. It’s more than a movie to a lot of people. Some films are more than just films. They exist as a form of entertainment, and entertainment is something everyone needs (yes, “need”, not “want”). And if you listen to the discussions and arguments, you’ll find that they make good points for being pissed at the movie. It’s not that it’s a movie, it’s what the movie represents.

For the neutral folk like yourselves, if it means nothing, then it’s not a discussion you should be involved in. Considering you’ve mentioned the film and the controversy on a few occasions, so you mine as well as drop the pretense, since you seem to care. For others who were fans of the star wars saga/franchise, it represents a major irreparable flaw in the Star Wars universe, with story flaws, character flaws, betrayals of personalities/rules setup in the past (and in the same film), and a film that exists more as feminist anti-capitalist propaganda and less as a Star Wars Story. And then there are those who don’t really give a damn about Star Wars in general, and just enjoy the movie for the spectacle (shutting their brains off to anything requiring 2 seconds of thought), and/or are all for the feminist anti-capitalist message (and they’re all hypocrites).

In addition, the film represents where the Star Wars franchise is headed unless something is done soon (assuming it’s not too late). Some get too violent or illogical about it, such as that fund-raising event to remake the film (it’s not that they will remake it themselves, they want to raise funds to give to Disney under the agreement that they will remake the film with the raised budget in the way these fans desire), and it’s wishful thinking in my opinion. Others troll supporters of the film on Twitter and stuff, calling them shills and whatnot (but in all fairness, they are right some of the time). But if nothing else, this is a backlash against Disney for doing the same thing to the fans, sending their own shills to troll them, convincing youtube to demonetize accounts, remove comments/videos/accounts, and not taking anyone’s arguments seriously, even if it’s well-founded criticism.

This isn’t just a rabid fan-base, it’s also a rabid corporate-base. The fans don’t want to see anymore Star Wars films released that are this politically driven, and are protesting both the film, future Star Wars films, and Disney, until they either get taken seriously, or until Star Wars dies. They just want a film where the writers, directors, and producers know the lore and the source material, and wish to create a new film with great care in this regard. The fact that the new film took less care than the prequel trilogy did says something.

As for the character who played Rose, I’m not so sure she quit Instagram because she was being relentlessly trolled. There’s no record showing her being trolled, no comment screenshots, and not even her word on it. It’s the word of Disney staff saying that’s how it is. Comes off as some other form of damage control by using anti-feminism as a scapegoat or something.

Speaking of re-evaluating the prequels, I have done just that:
https://theanomaloushost.org/2018/06/25/star-wars-prequel-trilogy-1999-2005-epic-review/

And in addition, I plan on doing a re-review of The Last Jedi, to showcase precisely how it’s more than just a movie, why the fan rage is justified, and why the criticism should be taken seriously. But as a warm-up for this, you might want to check this video out which explains this position more clearly than I can:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgyUZmv0DFU&index=26&list=PLpx0V8z84pQmt9FYJ2qZmjND7VDLhdq55&t=0s

Christ, and I was about to recommend a movie for you guys to continue on with the batshit crazy Japanese flicks (Suicide Club, available on YouTube, uncut). I have an idea, why don’t you give me a reason not to take this seriously. “It’s just a movie” is not an excuse that will hold weight. I guarantee it. That’s like saying Seven Samurai is only a movie, or that The Godfather is only a movie. Movies can change lives, and people make a living making and critiquing/talking about movies. Besides, if it was just a movie made solely for entertainment purposes and nothing else, Kathleen Kennedy wouldn’t be promoting the message “The Force is Female.”

So what do you say? Put into practice what you said many many months ago?

“Having them exist is an opportunity for conversation.”

“If people would just sit the fuck down, and talk about things…”

And here’s my counter-argument to their counter-argument:

Nice counter-argument to what I said. I pity you don’t consider one other thing that throws a wrench into your entire stance. The corporations that make the films, and how much they care about the films (or not). While it’s true they largely exist just to create films to make a profit off of them, there’s other factors to consider. George Lucas didn’t create Star Wars just to make money, it was to tell a story he had a personal investment in. Same thing with the prequels, though with more mixed results. Oliver Stone did something similar with his film Platoon, as did Francis Ford Coppola with Apocalypse Now, and so did Akira Kurosawa with Dreams. In those cases, the film was a method of expressing their own personal/political/philosophical views, or just to tell a story they felt needed to be told. It wasn’t just a cash-grab for them.

On the other side of the coin, corporations also make films for similar reasons pointed out in John Carpenter’s They Live: subliminal messaging (sometimes it’s too blunt to be considered subliminal, at least in terms of being subtle). Sometimes the films are made to encourage audiences to think in a certain way, a “herd mentality”. And sometimes a film is made with little to no passion other than the subliminal message, which is something many critics nowadays are picking up on because it’s difficult to avoid. And if the film becomes more about the message than about the story, which is what many critics of The Last Jedi are arguing against, then the criticism is inevitably going to be about the message. And the director and others responsible for making that film lash out at the criticism, becoming just as bad, if not worse, than the worst of those they argue against.

And it would be nice if many could just, “make their own damn movie.” The problem is that many face obstacles from corporations like Disney, among others, because the film industry has become political. Films like 2018’s Death Wish can’t be released without facing criticism, saying it’s “the wrong film at the wrong time.” Films like 2017’s The Red Pill can’t be made without resorting to Kickstarter after backlash over the direction it was heading, as a documentary. And, of course, there’s the cancellation of conservative television shows such as Last Man Standing despite the fact that it was doing so well in the ratings compared to other shows on similar channels. Many people like me have a right to be pissed when the kinds of films/shows we want aren’t getting made simply because they don’t fit in with.

Lastly, you can claim all you want that “it’s just a movie” for you, but that statement would be easier to swallow when, considering this is a podcast that is all about violent/bloody/gory/rapy movies, you guys say you’re not interested in some so-and-so movie like 2018’s Death Wish because it’s about some old upper-class white dude turning into a vigilante and killing people. Sounds like some of the media you’ve been watching over the past few years has had an impact on the types of films you’d be willing to watch. I’m not saying you have to watch that movie, I’m just giving an example. There’s other films I can recommend over that one.

 

Oh, right, and one other thing.  If films didn’t have an impact on your lives in any way, in particular films with rape scenes in them, then how do you explain the “rape jar”?

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.

An out of nowhere discussion on feminism, masculinity, and tranny.

So I didn’t intend to get into a debate, but this kinda ended up happening.  Putting it on this site just in case the comments get removed for some reason (anything is possible).  Started in the comments thread of this video, starting with MakiPCR’s response to Comic Book Girl 19’s review:

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.

 

 

STAGE2STAGE2or you could save everyone some time and just make your icon a fucking swastika?

Me:

Well I could, but then people would likely take that the wrong way. It could be taken from its Sanskrit word “svasktika” to mean “Well Being” or “Good Existence” or “Good Luck.” It could be taken from its Hindu region to mean God/Sun or Kami/magic. Or it could be taken from Buddhism to mean good fortune, prosperity, abundance and eternity. Then there’s the meaning it had in ancient Rome within the Christian catacombs where it had an association with the word ZOTIKO, meaning “life.” Not to mention its use/definition by the Navajo Indians and the Greeks.

But then again, you’d probably rather have it associated with Hitler and the Nazis, as a symbol of the Aryan race which is to be superior to all other races, hence it’s association with racism and genocide. Just like how you’d rather view me and my review as racist rather than as well-meaning with a solid argument behind it that argues against racism.

What say you, shallow thinker? Constructive criticism, hearty debate, or exit stage 2 to the left?