Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Kinokima

Banning of Films

Recommended Posts

This is truly the most contentious thread I have seen in a long time.

 

I feel we have a lack of tolerance on the part of many posters. They seem to feel threatened when their viewpoints are not accepted by others and then they get snarky.

 

If we're going to have a civil, adult conversation about banning and censorship, then we need to leave personality quirks at the door and keep the conversation in context.

 

And we need to stop correcting one another and trying to shoot down opinions and undermine each other. And we definitely need to stop throwing trumped up facts into the mix that have nothing to do with what's being discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Kinokima wrote:}{quote}

> > {quote:title=johnm_001 wrote:}{quote}

> > This is the most intentionally/unintentionally ridiculous thread, ever. Well, at least in quite some time! I refuse to believe the OP is serious.

>

> Am I serious about what? That I am against banning, & censoring films that are deemed politically incorrect?

>

> For your information I created this thread because someone mentioned this very thing in the Audrey Hepburn/Emma Thompson thread. The thread was getting off topic so someone asked that we create a new thread because other people wanted to discuss this topic. And it seems this ridiculous topic has gone on for quite a few pages.

>

> If it is so ridiculous to you don't reply. And please keep your snark to yourself.

>

> Next time if I am going to be attacked for creating a thread I will let the other thread go off topic.

 

My apologies to you. I was thinking of the original post about this, on the other thread, and mistaking it for this thread. My point was to say that I cannot believe the person (I don't even recall who it was, as I've not even read through this thread), was serious about burning films. I know that wasn't you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you are still offending people with that kind of 'logic.' You take her off the hook, then you say it goes back to the other thread. First, this thread was not called Burning of Films, it was called Banning of Films...so the original idea was somewhat revised.

 

But even if it wasn't, and someone is serious about burning films...why does that have to be a joke to you? Is the burning of books funny to you as well? Maybe you need to stop being disrespectful to fellow posters and let them express their views and clarify those views without coming along and laughing like a hyena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=johnm_001 wrote:}{quote}

 

>

> My apologies to you. I was thinking of the original post about this, on the other thread, and mistaking it for this thread. My point was to say that I cannot believe the person (I don't even recall who it was, as I've not even read through this thread), was serious about burning films. I know that wasn't you.

 

 

Apology accepted! I might have overreacted a bit so I am sorry too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You did not over-react. You were put on the defensive because someone came along and did not read all the posts and spouted off their big mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you are unbalanced, the very idea of suggesting that film or books be burned or banned is ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This tells me that you have not kept abreast of all the posts and how both sides have been debated in this thread. You also do not know why banning, burning and censoring was even considered an option for some kinds of films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another problem is the way people read one or two posts, think they have a handle on the discussion (when they don't) and then proceed to chime in. The whole thread needs to be looked at first, then one can see what's been covered and how the conversation has evolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Kinokima wrote:}{quote}

> > {quote:title=johnm_001 wrote:}{quote}

>

> >

> > My apologies to you. I was thinking of the original post about this, on the other thread, and mistaking it for this thread. My point was to say that I cannot believe the person (I don't even recall who it was, as I've not even read through this thread), was serious about burning films. I know that wasn't you.

>

>

> Apology accepted! I might have overreacted a bit so I am sorry too.

 

Thanks, but no apology required from you! Completely my fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right this is a contentious thread but it is also a contentious topic that many people feel very strongly about.

 

Well you know I strongly disagree with you but I have to give you some respect because you are basically defending your stance by yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=ClassicViewer wrote:}{quote}

> This tells me that you have not kept abreast of all the posts and how both sides have been debated in this thread. You also do not know why banning, burning and censoring was even considered an option for some kinds of films.

 

There's no reason for me to read the entire thread, as there is simply no acceptable reason, to me, for burning or banning film. None!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes things get a little contentious. Bill Holden, is he better with a shaved or

hairy chest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinokima, this is your *original* post.

 

<< Bringing this over from the Audrey Hepburn/Emma Thompson thread since it was a bit off topic.

 

Should a film ever be banned or destroyed because it is offensive/racist? Films talked about were Birth of Nation, Triumph of the Will, and Breakfast at Tiffany's

 

I say definitely no but then I am against all forms of censorship. I do think you can learn something from these films even if the racist portrayals/messages are hard to watch.

 

Also quoting Roger Ebert again

 

"The Birth of a Nation' is not a bad film because it argues for evil. Like Riefenstahl?s Triumph of the Will, it is a great film that argues for evil. To understand how it does so is to learn a great deal about film, and even something about evil."

 

Discuss! >>

 

I myself simply agreed with you. Go figure. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=C.Bogle wrote:}{quote}

> Sometimes things get a little contentious. Bill Holden, is he better with a shaved or

> hairy chest?

 

Ha ha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=C.Bogle wrote:}{quote}

> Sometimes things get a little contentious. Bill Holden, is he better with a shaved or

> hairy chest?

 

 

Now that is just too controversial to even start to discuss.

 

Thanks for the much needed humor. :)

 

 

And thanks *Hamradio* for posting my original post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk about political correctness.......

 

 

This is what you wrote near the beginning of this thread:

 

Posted: Aug 12, 2010 1:29 PM ? in response to: Kinokima

Reply

 

Thanks for creating this little spinoff.

 

I am advocating for not only banning, but burning of particular films.

 

Just because something is copyrighted and develops a cult following doesn't mean it should last into the ages.

 

If I read this correctly you ARE in favor of banning and burning of particular films. This goes against all forms of free speech guaranteed to us by our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=ClassicViewer wrote:}{quote}

> I read your post from 3:28, but it's so full of nitpicking and it would require me to be even more nitpicking to write a detailed response to each of those points. I may be in the mood later to hash over some of this, but not now. Sorry.

>

> And I definitely refuse to get into a debate about abortion, immigration and wars. This is a forum about classic films. The banning of films is a relevant topic in my book, but political issues that cannot possibly be solved in one day are not relevant to this discussion at all.

 

ClassicViewer, no one suggested that we actually talk in depth about the many potentially extraneous things mentioned in this thread. I said, "Morals and ethics are a contentious issue in this country" in relation to censorship. You responded with, "I don't think moral and ethical standards are contentious among like-minded individuals who belong to groups with the same societal objectives." I listed a variety of things this country has problems with across social, religious, economic boundaries to support my original statement. That doesn't mean we have to start talking about those things in depth, nor was it intended to.

 

If we're going to have a discussion on censorship, we have to discuss the potential uses of negative and positive material, your comment about what I said about communists reading only The Communist Manifesto or Capital (a comment I made in relation to the historical properties of those texts) requires me to explain why I would think that way.

 

> {quote:title=ClassicViewer wrote:}{quote}

> You talk about freedom of speech, but it seems that anyone who advocates something you disagree with, something where you might feel threatened, that is not okay...so you would probably want to silent that viewpoint and go against your own principles.

 

It's impossible to have a conversation or debate if we don't support stances and opinions. Just because there are a lot of anti-censorship people here and you're the only person supporting censorship doesn't mean we're somehow censoring you. No one here has remotely suggested that you have no right to voice your opinion. If you feel that way, I'm sorry.

 

Jamesjazzguitar's request that we refresh the thread starting with a clarifying of your basic opinion is completely reasonable, how can we discuss the topic if we don't know what to discuss? At this point we're only going in circles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you do need to read an entire thread or else run the risk of sounding like an ignoramus. You have made several mistakes and have had to apologize. If you had been clear about what was posted in the thread and by whom, it is likely you could've avoided those errors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't need respect for defending a viewpoint solo. And even when others agree, I don't need their help or support in a thread. I am not here to form a posse.

 

But I do need respect as someone who says the sky is purple, even if everyone else says it's blue...because we should all be allowed to express our own interpretations of something. If that scares someone else or threatens their way of thinking, then deal.

 

What distresses me the most in this thread is the lack of tolerance. And then we have those who act like clowns and just mock or laugh at others. That is adding disrespect and rudeness on top of the pre-existing intolerance. Again, we don't all have to agree. But I think we need to allow one another wide enough berth to formulate ideas and clarify ideas, without trying to co-opt or strong arm a poster into changing or recanting. Where's the freedom in that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Jonas. I have already indicated that I would not fall into that trap and I won't. You can keep arguing with me about it, but the answer is no. I won't do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, you have to realize that the constitution is not always upheld. Shocking isn't it.

 

There were plenty of times when your parents nipped your freedom of speech in the bud and overruled you. I am sure you have had things banned from your life. We all have. But if you want to keep making a federal case about it, go ahead. Getting all legalistic about it is not going to change the fact that the so-called rights of some groups are superseded by the control of a more dominant group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=ClassicViewer wrote:}{quote}

> I think you do need to read an entire thread or else run the risk of sounding like an ignoramus. You have made several mistakes and have had to apologize. If you had been clear about what was posted in the thread and by whom, it is likely you could've avoided those errors.

 

And I think you need to take your meds, so there you go. We don't always do what someone thinks is best, now do we? Besides, I have read enough of your posts to know they reek of imbalance and paranoia. I have zero further interest in either reading your posts or responding to them. So I won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My request "that we refresh the thread starting with a clarifying of your (CV's) basic opinion" was a legit request. I really was trying to get the thread back to topic so I could understand the POV of those that feel movies should be banned or burned, and how this would work in a so called 'free' society like we have in the USA.

 

I didn't post the request so I could just attack someone but to try to understand how a ban could be implemented. Sorry for being so practical but thanks for the support.

 

My guess (but only a guess), is that I didn't receive a reply becauase there isn't any logical or practical way to implement a ban of movies in the USA. But again, I'm willing to hear out those that feel there is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what you are getting at and you are right that Freedom of Speech is not an *absolute* there are limitations such as like you said towards children but that is needed for proper upbringing and for the educational institutions otherwise there will be chaos. Children are routinely suspended from government-run schools for writing on walls. Free speech ends at defacement.

 

Hurtful speech or the use of racial slurs should *never* be tolerated. My parents taught me to show respect towards other people and I never use anything to demean them. Yes there are also limitations such as court ordered gag orders, slander, pergury, what one can use at the workplace, etc. Whats called fighting speech get get one put in jail.

 

Speech in the US is free only if it's within approved limits. It's only thanks to the American Civil Liberties Union there aren't more limits to speech, because government is forever erecting barriers the ACLU knocks down.

 

You might be amused that in Thomas Jefferson's hometown there's a huge Free Speech chalkboard on the downtown mall where people can write anything they like. It all gets erased every Thursday.

 

Yes the constitution is not always upheld, not shocking but true and scary like the newest Patriot Act proves. There are people i.e. terrorist who hate our way of life that is elated to see our freedoms get chip away little by little, which is their main objective. :(

 

All I'm asking from you is please don't be so hard, please show the same respect towards us that you expect and should be showed toward you. I'm trying to be as civil as possible. If you see some type of meaning in my replies that you think is somewhat disrepectful or rude, that is NEVER my intent. Its sometime hard to type what one thinks and one misplace word if misunderstood can cause bickering and worst a thread war which was common on this site before 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...