US standing in Middle East lower now than at end of Bush Administration

something tells me the SAG would have something to say about your knowledge of the film-making process.

do you really think i could hire Meryl Streep for a film about, i dont know, child abuse in the foster care system, and then photoshop a big cock in her mouth?

 

before i answer that, do you think the obama administration meant the film was "disgusting" because it misrepresented the political view of the actors? it would be perfectly acceptable if the actors signed a contract saying they had no control and didnt care about the eventual use of their voices and likenesses in the film?

you have mved the goalposts to an argument you think you can win, but you cannot. but before i point out why you are wrong, i will first demonstrate why its a red herring.

 

oh, ok, sure, the potus wasnt worried about the actors.

as far as how is the film reprehensible, i suppose i have to watch it first. but i imagine it is reprehensible because it is bigoted and inflammatory. not sure that's illegal but it is intentionally insensitive. i see nothing wrong in saying so. words are cheap. censorship is another matter. i do beleive the US has not censored the film.

 

who defines what is inflammatory? clearly any depiction of muhammad is defined to be inflammatory by muslims. if muslims were, for example, angered by the way we allow american women to roam the streets without covering their heads, and they were angered and offended, would you consider our policy towards women inflammatory and therefore reprehensible?

what do you mean by bigoted in what sense is this film bigoted? it expresses an opinion that a certain viewpoint is wrong. am i "bigoted" for my views on christianity? are you "bigoted" for your views on conservatism?

clearly the film isnt racially bigoted, the guy who made it is himself of egyptian descent. he is mocking a viewpoint, not his own race of people. is that wrong? why? do you think militant islam, the thing he is critical of, is a grood thing that shouldnt be criticized?

was the danish filmmaker who was killed in the street, was he similarly reprehensible, for doing basically the exact same thing?

 

i dont know, ask a judge. but its clear to me that its inflammatory and intentionally so (as opposed to our policy on women.)

bigoted as in the definition of bigoted--inconsiderate, hostile to other views not necessarily about race.

like i said, i didnt see the film. was it critical against islam or militiant islam. big difference. because if the critique is valid then it has inherent value. my impression is that the coptic film has no basis and was created solely to be inflammatory.

what was his film like? he didnt get due process, which im all for (due process, that is.). id guess his speech had inherent value.

 

judges do not determine what is inflammatory because it is subjective and legal to offend others. salman rushdie writes his novel, a worldwide islamica call for his murder means people are inflamed. so what?

i am hostile towards lots of views. i mean am hostile in thought and words. i want to beat down stupid ideas. i dont want to beat down stupid people. there is a difference between thought and violence. try to understand that hostility to ideas is healthy.

no difference. so deeply and desperately wrong.

it can be critical of conentration camps and nazis or pretty daisies. it doesnt matter. people have viewpoints. we dont prosecute thought crimes.

and whoa re you to say?

good. rosa parks sat in the front of the bus to be inflammatory. al gore made his global warming film to be inflammatory. the way i see it, art is boring unless is kinda inflammatory. art is not supposed to be your therapist, it doesnt give a fuck about your feelings.

the whole point is that it doesnt matter what his film was like. he was killed for it. it could have been a tribute to cute bunnies or a position piece called "why niggers should burn". it doesnt matter. at no point should any government official determine whether a piece of art is disgusting or reprehensible.

when piss christ came out, and when mapplethorpe was having hus trouble, it started a debate about public funding for the arts. people made the poin that content was relevant because tax dollars fund some of this "offensive" art. that a decent argument. but private art is a different matter. south park and mark twain and this crazy movie, and theo van gogh, they all have a POV, and that is fine, they should always be protected and their art shouldnt be judged by the govt. obama should say that he would rather americans die than any art of any form is discouraged.

 

My point is that our politicians are wrong to call art disgusting or reprehensible. They are not to make value judgements like that. They should not call the bible disgusting, they shouldn't call salman Rushdie an asshole, they should not call Scientology a crock. The govt should remain neutral to any religious assertions.

It's not their place and they should shut up, because they don't speak for me.