I bet you no one at the school bothered to watch it before banning it. Typical knee jerk reaction. |
I didn't say you were the bad guy for standing up for the students. I have no issue with that whatsoever. But at this point I don't see how the continued sparring with this one person serves that goal either. |
ACLU probably wouldn’t take the lawsuit if there wasn’t some merit to it. People need to stop banning everything that makes them uncomfortable. |
Good suggestion to watch the film.
I will try to do it this week. Everyone and their mother is commenting on here like they are experts without having watched the film |
I watched it. The site admin is right, and most of the things said about the film (e.g., it's extremely antisemitic) simply aren't true. |
Things are being labelled anti-semitic way too often. But that makes sense given the way out of proportion, devasting rise of calling every single thing racist over the past few years. Stop labelling and let the conversations flow so that we can actually try to find agreement. Calling everything "racist" has destroyed a generation already. Lets stop with all of it. |
NP. Jeff, the know-it-all tone of your replies on this as "statements of fact" is off putting. It is your board and you have a right to ban people and cull responses as you see fit, but if you are truly open to discussion then I would ask you to consider who made you the arbiter of what is and is not antisemitic or offensive. People's world views and experiences differ greatly and those in turn inform their views on what may or may not be offensive to them. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it's ironic hypocritical for your t declare the film not offensive and threaten to remove posts from anyone who disagrees in the name of "legitimate discussion". You don't think the film is offensive or antisemitic or pro-Hamas; you are entitled to your opinion. But why can't reasonable people disagree with you? |
P.S. I happen to think it should be shown and a discussion had on the subject. But that's a separate issue from belittling or dismissing people who disagree with your views. |
Anyone is welcome to disagree with me and many posters do disagree with me all the time. The poster above is doing something very similar to trolling — attempting to disrupt the discussion with comments that have no connection to reality. For instance, the poster wrote: "the whole POINT of the documentary is to dispute that Hamas is a legitimate threat". Nobody who watched the video could reasonably come that that conclusion. The video was not about Hamas, it was not even about Gaza. The point of the video was to describe how the perception of the Israel-Palestine conflict is influenced in the US. Either this poster has not watched the video or is lying. In either case, her input is only serving to hijack the discussion. I don't care if a random person thinks the video is anti-Semitic. They are free to think what they want. What I do care about is that random person having veto power that prevents others from viewing the video. According to the ACLU complaint:
I really don't see why, if we are trying to have a serious discussion, we should entertain posts that demonstrate no connection to reality. But, if you have watched the video and can articulate a reasonable argument that the video is anti-Semitic please do. So far, any such argument has been based on falsehoods. Not something that I think is false, but something that I can objectively prove is false such as a claim that the video contains content that it does not contain. |
Jeff I read the transcript. Indeed the WHOLE POINT is to characterize Israels entire foreign policy/security position as propaganda that it has “occupied the american mind” with through crafty PR. in particular the part where the expressly anti-semitic Hamas charter is completely dismissed is extremely troubling to say the least. Apparently that part is not in the edited version but nobody has demonstrated which version will be shown. As well, it is narrated by a dude *currently known* to go around in Nazi uniforms in public. |
DP: Have you read this thread? It has some answers for you. |
As I have written repeatedly, the transcript posted here is not for the version of the video the students plan to show. Your current "WHOLE POINT", which is different than you previous said, is fairly accurate other than your references to Hamas' charter which, as I previously explained to you, is not in the video that the students plan to show. The ACLU press release which is linked in the first post of this thread links to the video. Again I ask that you at least take the time to watch it before you demand that students be prevented from seeing it. Here is the link provided by the ACLU: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jKRwdsq-As As for the narrator of the video, his role is brief and nobody has argued that he had any editorial control over the video. He simply read a script. Arguing that a video should be banned due to its narrator rather than its content is the height of absurdity. |
So if David Duke was narrating a film about Brown v BoE it would be absurd for people to impute messaging or import to the choice of narrator? Louis Farrakhan could narrate a film about Jewish owned banks and people would be absurd to believe the choice of narrator is without import or meaning? |
Come on Jeff. Imagine this scenario: A group of students wants to show a documentary on “woke culture”. Part of it is narrated by David Duke. An earlier version included statements about how “slavery wasn’t that bad and didn’t cause the civil war” but was edited out. You actually think JR would allow it to be shown? |
We have apparently reached the point at which posters are no longer able to credibly dispute the content of the video. I am not going to engage your hypotheticals. If you have an objection to the content of the video, let’s hear it. Right now you are simply back peddling. I will again ask that you watch the video. |