|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Go back a few decades and people were literally spitting on the troops as they came home, so, uh, pretty sure it's an improvement there. This isn't actually true. It's one of those popular myths that soldiers returning from Vietnam were spat on and lots of people know a guy who knows a guy who it happened to and maybe it did happen once or twice but not nearly in the mass amounts people describe. At the time the left anti-war movement was more despised and this whole "they spat on us" thing arose later in the early 80's as people's common memory of Vietnam shifted towards revisionism and suddenly everyone had said all along that the war was a bad idea. This is the same timeframe when people started complaining that if not for those drat protesting student hippies we would have won the war with the Linebacker bombing missions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spitting_Image
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:59 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:This isn't actually true. It's one of those popular myths that soldiers returning from Vietnam were spat on and lots of people know a guy who knows a guy who it happened to and maybe it did happen once or twice but not nearly in the mass amounts people describe. At the time the left anti-war movement was more despised and this whole "they spat on us" thing arose later in the early 80's as people's common memory of Vietnam shifted towards revisionism and suddenly everyone had said all along that the war was a bad idea. This is the same timeframe when people started complaining that if not for those drat protesting student hippies we would have won the war with the Linebacker bombing missions. Well huh, thanks for the link! That's kind of more interesting than if it were true.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:That's kind of more interesting than if it were true. While you are applying this to an overlapping context, I think it's an enduring truth of the controversy surrounding American Sniper as well. The message to be taken isn't the formal plot elements but in the construction and use of the historical narrative itself. Many modern films that take war as their subject share this underlying message in the creation of masculine identity; most recently True Detective in regards to Vietnam. Danger fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Feb 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Danger posted:While you are applying this to an overlapping context, I think it's an enduring truth of the controversy surrounding American Sniper as well. The message to be taken isn't the formal plot elements but in the construction and use of the historical narrative itself. Many modern films that take war as their subject share this underlying message in the creation of masculine identity; most recently True Detective in regards to Vietnam. True Detective has that great bit where Woody Harrelson pines for the days when men just didn't talk about their problems, then spends the rest of the show having problems that he didn't talk about destroy his life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:It's not about suppression, it's about giving false legitimacy to people spreading dangerous lies and misinformation. It's like when they have a debate between one scientist that doesn't believe in climate change vs. one that does. It presents both ideas as equal while ignoring the fact that one side has been completely discredited and that there are a thousand experts that disagree with him for every one that agrees. Sometimes exposing the other side's weak arguments in a debate-style format bolsters the side with more compelling evidence and can be more persuasive than a one-sided presentation. Its why we want people like Sarah Palin and Scott Walker in public debates. Grizzled Patriarch posted:People are free to hold whatever opinions they want, but giving them a soapbox on a platform that people draw their news from and trust to be a reliable source of information is socially irresponsible at best. It depends on what we're talking about here. News organizations should not allow someone to say that the capital of Iraq is Sadr City without correcting them; facts are facts. But allowing someone to defend what we're doing in Afghanistan is a different story. On a side note, I'd favor the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine. It wouldn't fix everything, but it might help. Grizzled Patriarch posted:You also have to consider the fact that the people actually reading news aren't the ones who have misinformed / uninformed opinions about the war. The kind of person that is reading HuffPo on a daily basis isn't sitting around wondering if invading Iraq was maybe justified. It's one of those catch-22s where the people that need the news most aren't reading any. I mentioned earlier that 96% of the population reads less than 10 news articles in a 3 month span. That's pretty bad. I would feel a lot more comfortable about movies like this if the general public was more informed in general. Agreed. HuffPo may not be the best example though. They're better than many but there are better sources in my opinion (Truthdig, Commondreams, Democracy Now, etc). These sources can be accessed as quickly and easily as Red State. The other thing is that awareness is not enough. You need a finely-tuned critical thinking apparatus to go with it, and you need to vote. Grizzled Patriarch posted:It was Larry Wilmore (Colbert's replacement), I dunno if Stewart has weighed in any meaningful fashion. I believe Maddow has kept silent too (probably wisely) but there was a big segment that essentially boiled down to "thanks for your service." Which is understandable, since saying anything that could be construed as questioning the military on prime time news is probably a good way to wind up without a career. Fair enough. I think a distinction needs to be made between supporting troops and supporting foreign policy, but your point about progressive voices being handcuffed by the corporate structure if they want to stay on the air is a good one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 23:57
|
|
socketwrencher posted:Fair enough. I think a distinction needs to be made between supporting troops and supporting foreign policy, but your point about progressive voices being handcuffed by the corporate structure if they want to stay on the air is a good one. I think that distinction is pretty harmful, really, because "supporting the troops" has become something non-negotiable in the US. So you can be against foreign policy, but when someone asks if you support the troops, you have to say yes, essentially shutting down the conversation. I hate the Canadian army, and nobody would call me an rear end in a top hat for saying that (unless their relatives are in the army), because we don't have the same creepy mentality about the military here.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Canadians have Col. Russ Williams for military figures of note.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I think that distinction is pretty harmful, really, because "supporting the troops" has become something non-negotiable in the US. So you can be against foreign policy, but when someone asks if you support the troops, you have to say yes, essentially shutting down the conversation. Why do you hate the Canadian army?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I think that distinction is pretty harmful, really, because "supporting the troops" has become something non-negotiable in the US. So you can be against foreign policy, but when someone asks if you support the troops, you have to say yes, essentially shutting down the conversation. As someone who was in the military, I can assure you that a good portion of troops (myself included) hate the foreign policy that is in place. It's very easy to separate the two, and if the conversation shuts down like you said it does, you're probably talking to someone who won't care about your opinion anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 01:18
|
|
socketwrencher posted:Why do you hate the Canadian army? They're an army.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:Sometimes exposing the other side's weak arguments in a debate-style format bolsters the side with more compelling evidence and can be more persuasive than a one-sided presentation. Its why we want people like Sarah Palin and Scott Walker in public debates. This is true. I think I'm just jaded because more often than not, what happens is that the crazies find someone that is charismatic enough and a skilled enough bullshitter that their arguments seem legitimate or even compelling. Then you've got to deal with biased assimilation, which is why, for example, studies (http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/37/11/2098/) showed that exposing people skeptical of things like vaccinations and climate change to objective fact tends to make them even more hardline. It's much easier to convince someone that something is true than it is to convince them that something is untrue, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, which is why certain opinions can be very dangerous. Realistically, trying to argue that the Iraq War was justified is not much different from claiming Sadr City is the capital of Iraq; it was a war based on false pretenses and not a single reason given for the conflict ended up being credible. Buying into the hype at the time is one thing, but looking at in retrospect and saying that it was justified is objectively false. Opinions stop being opinions when they are deliberate lies. quote:Agreed. HuffPo may not be the best example though. They're better than many but there are better sources in my opinion (Truthdig, Commondreams, Democracy Now, etc). These sources can be accessed as quickly and easily as Red State. Definitely. Ideally you'd be getting your news from multiple credible sources, doing some basic fact checking, etc. A lot of it comes down to deeply systemic issues that there isn't a clear answer for. There probably isn't a way to dramatically improve civic participation without widescale reform of everything from basic public education to voting laws. quote:Fair enough. I think a distinction needs to be made between supporting troops and supporting foreign policy, but your point about progressive voices being handcuffed by the corporate structure if they want to stay on the air is a good one. I agree that a distinction should be made, but I also think that the two are often seen interchangeably in the public eye. It's often difficult to reach a point where you can even discuss these nuances without people having knee-jerk responses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:This seems to be verging on the suppression of opinions that dissent from your own. There's a word for that. socketwrencher posted:On a side note, I'd favor the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine. It wouldn't fix everything, but it might help.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 09:59
|
|
|
meristem posted:Well, it might. Discussing climate change, the Iraq War, vaccines etc. in a way that is "honest, equitable and balanced" should shut out the denialists completely. Otherwise it wouldn't be honest. It's honest that a significant number of people hold denialist views, and as a result they should get representation on the matter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's honest that a significant number of people hold denialist views, and as a result they should get representation on the matter. This is why nobody really wants democracy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
I have a question about the Fairness Doctrine. How did it effect hosts/anchors, i.e. the questions they ask, the tone they have when they discuss the issue, etc. For instance you could argue that Bill O'Reilly adheres to it when he has two people of opposing views on to discuss an issue, but then he kinda fucks all that up by asking stupid leading questions, treating those he disagrees with like dirt, and making his own viewpoints excessively clear. Would these kind of hosts be forced to be at least a little more subtle about it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
From what I remember, O'Reilly is way saner on the radio.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:This is true. I think I'm just jaded because more often than not, what happens is that the crazies find someone that is charismatic enough and a skilled enough bullshitter that their arguments seem legitimate or even compelling. Then you've got to deal with biased assimilation, which is why, for example, studies (http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/37/11/2098/) showed that exposing people skeptical of things like vaccinations and climate change to objective fact tends to make them even more hardline. It's much easier to convince someone that something is true than it is to convince them that something is untrue, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, which is why certain opinions can be very dangerous. Exactly. Changing minds is difficult and complex because opinions are often based on things other than a rigorous and rational examination of the evidence. Look at creationism vs. evolution. Grizzled Patriarch posted:Realistically, trying to argue that the Iraq War was justified is not much different from claiming Sadr City is the capital of Iraq; it was a war based on false pretenses and not a single reason given for the conflict ended up being credible. Buying into the hype at the time is one thing, but looking at in retrospect and saying that it was justified is objectively false. Opinions stop being opinions when they are deliberate lies. I think I've been misreading what you've been saying on this point. I now think you're saying that what was said to be the justification for the war turned out to be false, so saying the war was justified is objectively wrong. That's of course true if we accept your premises. I was trying to say that there are people who believe the war was and still is justified for other reasons that mainly revolve around what they believe to be the benefits of an American exertion of power and hegemony. Grizzled Patriarch posted:Definitely. Ideally you'd be getting your news from multiple credible sources, doing some basic fact checking, etc. Agreed. Credible sources are a small slice of the media pie but they're easily accessible. Grizzled Patriarch posted:A lot of it comes down to deeply systemic issues that there isn't a clear answer for. There probably isn't a way to dramatically improve civic participation without widescale reform of everything from basic public education to voting laws. Good point. There's no quick and easy fix. I think people understandably get frustrated and become cynical about politics and often don't do anything more than vote along party lines (when they bother to vote at all; the 2014 midterm election turnout was just absurdly low, 36.3% of eligible voters http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/opinion/the-worst-voter-turnout-in-72-years.html). Grizzled Patriarch posted:I agree that a distinction should be made, but I also think that the two are often seen interchangeably in the public eye. It's often difficult to reach a point where you can even discuss these nuances without people having knee-jerk responses. That's true. I've been in conversations like that with my in-laws. That's one of the reasons I don't get too worked up over movies, I think their impact is relatively insignificant and that they're more useful in terms of what they may reflect about a society, not how they can change it. I think you have to reach people when they're young. I don't mean telling them what to think, but trying to give them a framework in which to process what they're taking in. Neil deGrasse Tyson talks about the value and importance of scientific methodology in an interview with Stephen Colbert. He said: "Science literacy is vaccinning against the charlatans of the world that would exploit your ignorance of the forces of nature." I think it applies to political literacy and just about everything else as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5oyx8bb5uI
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
The tears this movie has made has been worth it. The most anti war movie since Platoon is considered a "jingoist pro war movie" in 2015. loving LOL!!!! This is the movie I'm going to show to my 15 year old sons to convince them to never join the military. Seriously, what movie made in the last 10 years is more anti war than this? This movie is the best thing to happen to the anti-war movement in at least the last 5 years by far.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
Maybe reign it in a little, you're coming on way too strong.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 10:51
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:The tears this movie has made has been worth it. The most anti war movie since Platoon is considered a "jingoist pro war movie" in 2015. loving LOL!!!! What are you talking about? Soldiers watch the gently caress out of Platoon, quote it often, and usually encourage SSG Barnes to massacre the village.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 10:55
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Seriously, what movie made in the last 10 years is more anti war than this? Downfall, Letters From Iwo Jima, The Hurt Locker, Restrepo. poo poo, Troy spends a whole lot more time condemning war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:The tears this movie has made has been worth it. The most anti war movie since Platoon is considered a "jingoist pro war movie" in 2015. loving LOL!!!! They made one last year, it's called Fury.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:They made one last year, it's called Fury. A film that also has the audacity to portray loving Nazis and German civilians as human beings with just as much emotional complexity as the so-called heroes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:The Hurt Locker lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Hurt Locker goes into the category of films that say "look what war does to our soldiers" which is fine as far as anti-war films go, but I prefer the films that say "look what war does to everyone" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJNNzbWM4F8
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Seriously, what movie made in the last 10 years is more anti war than this? Ender's Game, a big wet fart of a movie aimed at 12-year-old boys, is significantly more anti-war than American Sniper.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 09:10
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Seriously, what movie made in the last 10 years is more anti war than this? Although why limit yourself to movies? Give them Spec Ops: The Line and This War of Mine to play. Specially This War of Mine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 09:27
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Hurt Locker goes into the category of films that say "look what war does to our soldiers" which is fine as far as anti-war films go, but I prefer the films that say "look what war does to everyone" It also shows war as something addictive, and Renner's character as a weird, messed up dude.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Glad I'm not alone in thinking a lot of you guys are way off about this movie. It's like people's politics are controlling their feelings. Same movie but it took place in Vietnam? People don't give a poo poo about that history anymore and would probably feel bad for the elite sniper. Maybe turn him into an alcoholic too or something. A classic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:This is the movie I'm going to show to my 15 year old sons to convince them to never join the military. Seriously, what movie made in the last 10 years is more anti war than this? This movie is the best thing to happen to the anti-war movement in at least the last 5 years by far. Explain what aspects of this movie are anti-war please.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
The movie doesn't need to be anti war to be good. I loved watching the terrorists get owned by the American Sniper and his freedom bullets a whoooole lot and that was good for me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:Glad I'm not alone in thinking a lot of you guys are way off about this movie. It's like people's politics are controlling their feelings. Same movie but it took place in Vietnam? People don't give a poo poo about that history anymore and would probably feel bad for the elite sniper. Maybe turn him into an alcoholic too or something. A classic. I agree. If you changed a bunch of stuff about this movie it may have been good. EATIN SHRIMP posted:The movie doesn't need to be anti war to be good. I agree with this too. A movie can be both pro-war and good. This one isn't though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
Wife and I saw this last night and thought it was excellent. Cooper particularly and how he was directed. The scene in the car shop comes to mind, his PTSD and behavior there were not overdone but very nuanced. Miller was great as well. My wife brought up Hurt Locker afterwards, which I thought was way overdone, particularly the lead, and makes for a good comparison film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
hurt locker is a horribly inaccurate film and it's one of the worst movies i have ever seen if you're trying to learn anything about the US military in the middle east. it's entertaining, but i would be more accurate throwing a football if you blindfolded me and spun me in circles for 20 minutes than that movie was about war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
That movie where George Clooney tries to steal
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:That movie where George Clooney tries to steal It really is. It's shocking to think that that film was made a full two years before 9/11 was even a thing, and yet it still fully encapsulates precisely the mentality and rhetoric that would be used to portray the invasion of Iraq as a noble, freedom-fighting cause. It's astounding that Russell took The Treasure of Sierra Madre and turned it into the story of American exceptionalism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:That movie where George Clooney tries to steal The Iraqi soldier force feeding Marky Mark petroleum is the angriest moment in any Iraq film, and we deserve a lot more of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:It really is. It's shocking to think that that film was made a full two years before 9/11 was even a thing, and yet it still fully encapsulates precisely the mentality and rhetoric that would be used to portray the invasion of Iraq as a noble, freedom-fighting cause. And Kelly's Heroes. Which is a fascinating time capsule of a movie. It's a fun 'boys own adventure' set in the middle of a war. It's kind of a weird movie, now. Cole posted:hurt locker is a horribly inaccurate film and it's one of the worst movies i have ever seen if you're trying to learn anything about the US military in the middle east. it's entertaining, but i would be more accurate throwing a football if you blindfolded me and spun me in circles for 20 minutes than that movie was about war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
It's pretty amazing to see someone criticizing Hurt Locker for being inaccurate on one hand while defending American Sniper on the other.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:59 |
|
|
American Sniper would have been a way more interesting film had it engaged with the book in any way. It's as filmed a Hollywood Story about a sniper who happens to be named Chris Kyle. Either unironically taking the book at face value, or engaging it through a cynical lens of a sniper who comes back home to write fanfiction about his life's story. I'm not asking for a commentary on the Iraq War as a whole, or the American Soldier's experience. Chris Kyle's story per the book would have no meaningful commentary on either. Also I don't condemn soldiers for having fun killing people. A lot of soldiers throughout history do, actually. There's a book called Soldaten that's a book summarizing the results of allied recordings of German PoWs in ww2 surreptitiously and there's a real sense that a lot of these people are like 19 year olds playing GTA in real life, given advanced weapons and equipment. A belly gunner in a Ju-88 talked about how much fun he had strafing columns of Poles with his machine gun, but I don't think it's because he's a broken person mentally. I think there is pleasure to be taken in violence, at least in some part in most people, particularly those who actually volunteer to join the military. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Feb 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 23:45
|
|
